• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    78
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just because some of them indirectly kill people doesn’t make it moral to kill them. Maybe if it actually would make the world better, you could have a utilitarian argument for it, but as long as you just kill individual billionaires and not creating a new socialist system they’ll just be replaced by new billionaires. As I said, regardless of whether it’s moral to kill them, it won’t help.

    • GlockenGold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      All of them indirectly kill people. It’s impossible to be a billionaire and a moral person, as a moral person would spend that wealth to improve the lives of others. You can say that “oh but this billionaire runs a charity!”, but how much of their own wealth do they give to it? Would a moral billionaire rely on the money of others to make change in the world? Would they still be a billionaire if they truly wanted change?

    • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Maybe if it actually would make the world better, you >could have a utilitarian argument

      I have no doubt it would make the world better if you kill them and distribute their money (in minecraft) to I don’t know social housing, public hospitals and schools (not claiming they will be used with %100 efficiency or %100 ethically but will be orders of magnitudes better than what billionaires are doing with them in maybe all cases). If it turns out to be a billionaire whose businesses we are currently addicted to (not gonna name names but you know), then there will be a period of inconvenience but we will get over it and adapt.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Obviously redistributing their wealth would be good. Killing them doesn’t automatically give you their wealth to redistribute, and redistributing without killing them is also a possibility you seem to be ignoring.

        • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          yes fair point. I am also ok to give them the following choices:

          1- live in a poor country with minimum wage with no opportunity to change jobs and a wealth cap (your annual earnings from other sources should be comparable to annual earnings of a minimal wage job). I have the feeling that after a couple months they will commit suicide. for billionaires directly affiliated with arms companies, this should be a country which was recently a war zone.

          2- trial by combat. no wait that is game of thrones got confused.

          This extra punishment’s purpose should be to act as a deterrant