I’m wondering about the Luigi line.
Post Trump, it seems as if there is no justice for the rich besides vigilante justice.
Would any of the below qualify for a Luigi? Where is the line? I find the cognitive ethical dissonance of Luigi disconcerting.
The following list is very dark, and super cynical - I apologize in advance.
A pharma company has found a cure for cancer, but suppresses it to make money on treatment. Causing innumerable deaths.
A pharma company has found a cure for Alzheimer’s - but suppresses it. Causing suffering.
A pharma company knows a drug treatment is ineffective for some major illness, but pushes it anyway, suppressing other research. Causing suffering.
A pharma company pushes a drug known to cause massive dependence, with insignificant benefit. Causing suffering.
A car company knows an airbag is defective, and does not fix it. Causing thousands of deaths.
An airplane manufacturer creates an airplane with faulty construction, knowingly, and thousands die.
A manufacturing company pollutes a town’s water, causing birth defects, general sickness.
This list could go on forever of course. But where is the line post Luigi, post Trump non-trial. What makes one CEO at risk, and another not?
This is basically the history of the Ford Pinto.
The Pinto is so, so much worse.
The scene in Fight Club is about a defect discovered post-purchase. They apply a formula to determine whether to issue a recall to fix said defect, or simply pay out settlements to the victims. It’s probably a reference to the Pinto, but it’s been replicated in countless other cases.
For the Pinto, Ford knew about the defect for years. In fact, the infamous design failure was a US-exclusive for years, because other countries passed legislation to ban it. And by the time the US did the same, Ford just switched in the design they had already been using elsewhere.
Ford fully knew about the defect, and continued to produce it for as long as they could.
100%.