LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
No its not because we know it to be true. We know that driving without a seatbelt is more dangerous than not. We also know that asking our employees to cooperate with robbers is also safer than not. You are right in the sense that we we take the decision out of our employees hands and of course many on here couldn't handle that. We do it for aggregate safety as well. I get it. I also pointed out that it is not perfect. It is just the best option, by far, statistically(probably a good spot to refer back to the insurance part of this thread).
I think my hostility toward what you are saying stems largely from the soulless utilitarianism with which you are expressing your point. You keep talking statistics and actuarial concerns regarding the lives of people. You talk about training human responses out of the humans that are in the employ of these firms. And you do so with a paternalistic and authoritarian tone that mocks any thought to the contrary.
You blithely assert that some non-zero percentage of these human employees will come to harm or death as a result of a corporate policy that removes any moral agency from these employees, who are the ones actually there, insisting that in all cases the wisdom of the remote corporate office not just overrides this from a business standpoint, but is in fact obviously and unquestionably correct. You are asking some random sample of humanity to lay down their lives for an actuarial table.
You are effectively producing a collateral damage estimate, and frankly BSing us that the intent is to save lives, rather than to reduce liability. And you've rightly concluded that other persons in power, of a similar nature to your own, have constructed a legal system that absolves your preferred mode from liability, never questioning that the foundation of that legal regime may be as morally corrupt as what it absolves… -is actually constructed specifically to absolve the corruption of those who strive for power.
So, yes, on a forum that exists to discuss the ethics, limits, and practical concerns of armed self-defense- that sees armed self-defense as a natural right, you are going to see a lot of hostility because you are, without saying exactly so, arguing that such concerns are a trivial, sentimental shuck that is laughably subordinate to the prerogatives of corporate managers.
Don't get me wrong. I completely understand why the corporate policy exists: it maximizes the benefit and minimizes the risk to the corporation. That is the end all, be all. But that is why SCOTUS was wrong in determining that corporations are people. They're not. Or at least, if they are people, they are psychopaths.
And so at the end of the day, sure, the corporate policy exists. But the decision whether or not to follow it really boils down to the rational judgment of the individual employee, with full cognizance of the risks, should the decision be made to value one's life more than one's job.