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?
Did your profit come at the cost of human lives that didn’t need to be lost? Is there little to no chance the legal system will evenly apply justice? Then Luigi is the only option.
The real question is how long does Luigi apply? Coca Cola was hiring assassins in the 90s, Michelin is probably why Vietnam happened, Chiquita executed laborers in the late 20’s, and Pinkerton was happily slaughtering striking workers about a century ago.