It's not relative morality, it's just that killing people isn't always immoral.
 

There are quite a lot of moral philosophies and religions that would disagree with that idea. Thou shalt not kill!
 

Relative, morality changes over time and between cultures.
 

"Does anybody really believe that companies will start to make more customer-friendly decisions if we just make murdering CEOs for bad company behavior common enough?" Yeah, honestly it's worth a shot. We couldn't do worse than we are now.
 

I don't think that murder is a good thing. However, I think hiding behind reprehensible actions because "it's not against the law" is mindset that must change. If you create a culture in a company that actively preys on people in times of need then don't be surprised if people affected by that lash out. I have first hand experience with these decisions and it has caused a lot of stress and pain in my life. They pushed someone too far and while I don't condone killing I am not saddened by this at all. I hope it leads to some self reflection for those in business who think people are commodities.
 

Tobold: "Anybody criticizing a morally bad behavior these days is being met with a "but what about ...?" response to deflect that criticism. This whataboutism is an exercise in relativisation."
Yes and no. I think this goes back to the same fundamental issue highlighted in the democracy post: things are not black and white.
One side uses whataboutism to fully overrule the statement while the other side accuses of whataboutism to deflect any problematic point in the statement.
Morality is absolute but it encompasses the entirety of a situation and not just the cherrypicked part that fits the polarised narrative.
Hitler isn’t a nice person because he helped an old lady over street once.
I think that people are afraid to consider the full picture due to the retaliation of their own echo chamber.

Yes, Israel is killing innocent people and children - who voluntarily or not supported Hamas by keeping them in power.
Yes, even that is not black and white as you can’t expect single persons to stand up against a regime that happily turns your neighbours against you if that means escaping punishment of the radicalised echo chamber.
Even if someone deep down knows that it is a morally reprehensible thing to do, they still keep the machine going to save their own back (which you can’t fault them for, but it does mean they aren’t fully innocent collateral).

"Thou shalt not kill!
"The imperative not to kill is in the context of unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt." (Wikipedia)
Killing is bad, but what if done in self defence? War? Capital punishment? etc.

DeepSleeper: "Yeah, honestly it's worth a shot. We couldn't do worse than we are now."
Have you ever considered that you yourself being murdered could improve the world? If not, why?

Janous: " 'it's not against the law' "
We all here are privileged and contribute overly proportional to climate change and the growing plastic trash sites in the Philippines and elsewhere.
Would you be saddened if one of the affected people lashed out and you died in the process? Or do you reflect on your daily activities that aren’t against the law but still cause a lot of stress and pain in the life of other people?

I think it’s always easy to point at someone else and their bad actions, while forgetting on which high horses we sit and how many people we trample in the process.
 

@Anonymous I believe that intent matters and also your contribution to the problem. If I ran a company that actively and knowingly polluted the environment to save a few percentage points of profit then I shouldn't be shocked in your example. I'm not sure why you assume those that write their opinion of something don't also reflect on themselves and what their actions could have caused in life. I'm also not sure why you think that would change peoples opinions.
 

Does anybody really believe that companies will start to make more customer-friendly decisions if we just make murdering CEOs for bad company behavior common enough?

Isn't that how our entire justice system works? We are dissuaded from committing crimes and hurting others because of the possibility we will face some sort of punishment if caught and prosecuted.

I 100% believe in a fictional scenario where CEOs are being taken out left and right that they'd be more mindful of how their decisions affect public perception of them and their companies.

I of course am not advocating for this.
 

I'll also add morals are flexible. So is religion. What is moral in today's society might not be in the future.

You quote "Thou shall not kill".

I could find biblical passages commanding God's chosen to slay all the men of their conquered rivals and enslave their women and children.
 

Totally agree with you that 'what-aboutism' is not a morale stance. But not because there is no universal scale ( of course there is a nearly universal scale: in all society, Killing is worse than stealing for exemple, or worse than jaywalking - the entire judiciary system is based on the fact you adapt the sentence to the crime and the criminal).
The real issue is that a bad cannot justify another bad. Especially between two individuals. The only exception is a impartial and just third party. Generally a judiciary system, sometimes a god.

There is no moral justification for "cheering at somebody's murder or death", but it has relatively low impact ( as long as it does not encourage other murder) and can be understood if other people have suffered due to this person. This is why for example, joy manifestation are not considered a big issue when a dictator is killed.
 

Are we to believe that Americans don't have a say in what happens inside their own country? Or towards Israeli's inside of Israel? Ukrainian's inside Ukraine? Et al?

According to recent data, around 92 countries are currently involved in conflicts beyond their borders, marking the highest number of countries engaged in conflict since the inception of the Global Peace Index. That should be telling enough. And it is going to get worse.
 

Janous: "If I ran a company […]"
Why do you need to run a company for pollution to matter?
Like I said, we all here are actively polluting the environment by the mere fact that we use the devices we use and by being on the Internet.
Maybe that’s not your intention, you didn’t know or the contribution is only so little, it’s not changing the fact that we still are.

I know that I contribute and that it’s hard not to because the Western world is set up that way. I just don’t go around and accuse others of doing things while excusing the same actions for me.
I also know that people are unlikely to change their double standards.

Bigeye: "Isn't that how our entire justice system works?"
No, I don’t think the justice system revolves around vigilantism and murdering people because you didn’t get your way.

If the person was wronged, then the process is to go through the proper instances and not to acquire a gun and ambush someone that you deem to be responsible.
Sure, the CEO is the head of the snake but did he personally decline the application? Did he establish and enforce a policy to handle things that way?
Or was it just Joe Shmoe case handler that had a bad day on a Friday and wanted to start the weekend?

Picture yourself in your fictional scenario as the CEO, are you certain to make only the right choices and stay alive?
What if you tank the share price and wipe out the savings of someone? Surely they wouldn’t think you could be held responsible for that?
 

The reason I chose "If I ran a company" is because as the leader I chose the intent, I set the tone. Policies and decisions are made based on the direction that I chose as the leader. As a consumer I believe I do have a responsibility, however I do not believe that it is the same level of responsibility as someone that sets the tone. So, the way my value system works is that as a consumer I am culpable, however there are tiers of culpability and at the top are people in power that actively and knowingly negatively impact things at a large scale.

I get it if people want to take action against a whole society or individual members of society to try and affect change. However, if you have a mindset to attack those that you don't agree with then I think attacking leaders is logical and attacking random members of a populace isn't. I don't agree that targeting anyone for violence is a good thing to do. However, I can understand something and not agree with it.

Intention and contribution matters to me. Your last line (directed to me) seems to disregard that and says any involvement is the same. I do not view things the same way.
 

@Tobold the behavior online in response to this is not related to morality, but rather due to the fact that people of their own personal experiences and interpretations of an issue which affects them, and while the death of a person in a city most commenters live in does not affect them personally, because of the news they learn that person was the CEO of a business whichvery likely did induce personal pain and cost to them and people they do directly care about. This is not a morality issue, it is an issue of psychology and how people relate to the deeply personal vs. the distantly removed. Had the man not been a CEO of United Health Care and had, say, been CEO of some auto parts business I doubt anyone would have commented about shoddy car parts or something because they don't have that indirect connection. So yeah, this is a matter of people responding in a manner they can relate to, which is their own personal pain and suffering, in response to realizing that this person is at minimum a figurehead for that suffering, even if he didn't personally deny their specific claim or issue.

The morality at play here is whether the killer was justified in their action, and the answer is, of course, dependent on the relative and amorphous nature of the social contract at play. But at least we can all agree it was illegal and criminal.
 

A lot of todays problems, in America at least, seem to arise from Americans not having a say in their own country. And a lot of the world's problems seem to come from America having too much of a say.

Trump, bad as he might be, seems like the only way to fight against this.
 

Janous: "[…] I chose the intent, I set the tone. Policies and decisions are made based on the direction that I chose as the leader."
And what do you think informs that intent of company leaders if not the demands of the customers?

If you buy cheap bananas shipped halfway around the globe or triple wrapped products, then companies will react to that.
Yes, of course does a company things at scale because that’s how a company works but it’s the customer who is the the trigger.

People who resort to violence usually don’t think things through so sure, will they pick an easy target as the catalyst. That doesn’t make it right.

The double standard is that you say you don’t condone killing but aren’t saddened by it because you had a similar experience thus it’s justified.
You also say that you hope for self reflection for those in business but then go on to wonder why it would change opinions.
When intention and contribution matter to you, why does it seem like you see yourself as a mere footnote?
Involvement is multifaceted and you need to be ignorant to blame CEOs for your personal contribution. Don’t buy their products if you don’t like the results.
 

@Anonymous This is my last response to you. I never said that the killing was justified. You're reading what you want to, not what I've written. Understanding something and justifying it are not the same things. You blame consumers for the way companies are run, I take it you're the type to blame people who buy drugs for there being drug dealers. I don't see the world the way you do and that's fine. I do appreciate that you were able to have a civil discussion without resorting to name calling though, that's rare on the Internet.
 

"Have you ever considered that you yourself being murdered could improve the world? If not, why?"
Sure! I've considered it. I'm not a CEO making a huge negative impact on the world, I don't set policies that cause irredeemable harm, nor do I rake in billions that could be used for countless improvements and squat on them.

You ever consider death as a means to stop your ceaseless discharge of preachy morally-null centrist nonsense? Maybe you should.
 

There are two principles here that people on the internet have a surprisingly hard time to understand: There can be more than one person or entity responsible for a situation. And the responsibility isn’t necessarily shared equally. If you decide to fly on holidays to Thailand, the responsibility for the carbon emissions for that is shared, with you, the airline company, the aircraft company, the oil company, and the Thai tourist office potentially all having some part of the responsibility, and this being different in weight.
Blaming “the CEO” or “the customer” for everything bad about a company is silly; there is an interplay between managers, employees, shareholders, customers, and other stakeholders at play. Most of the time it is very hard if not impossible to determine who carries what percentage of the blame.
 

This statement is true but also kind of pointless. We always blame leadership of an organization when that organization faces trouble. Whether it's the CEO of a company of the President of the United States, or the Head Coach of a losing sports team.

Accepting that blame and the responsibility of shouldering that comes with the territory of taking that position.
 

“Accepting the blame” is only possible if that blame doesn’t come with a bullet attached.
 

Janous: "I never said that the killing was justified."
I haven’t said you expressed that but you showed indifference. Indifference takes off the edge from not condoning it.

I can also see how people could assume that killing the CEO would change anything, but again they failed to think it through. Nothing will change besides maybe CEOs hiring protection.

Yes, I think the customer heavily influences the way companies are run and yes, people looking for drugs causes drug dealers to try and fulfil the demand.

From my limited understanding, UnitedHealth health plans are government funded. So what do people expect from it? They are likely not paying anything but expect great service? No, a company fulfilling the government requirements and looking for a profit can only offer so much.
That is what the individual signing up for it should keep in mind. The company purely exists to turn a profit from government flat fees vs. cost generated by customers.

And that holds equally true for drug dealers: if the customer only wants to pay bottom dollar, then they shouldn’t expect uncut product.
I you kill your dealer, the next one will not offer you higher quality drugs.
 

Tobold: "If you decide to fly on holidays to Thailand, the responsibility for the carbon emissions for that is shared, […]"
I would argue that IF you make that decision, then yes, the blame could be shared - but the decision itself is purely on the person alone.

The airline, the aircraft company, the oil company, the tourist board and all others are ultimately offering a service to you.
If you are concerned about the emissions, don’t take the flight. Go by train, bike, walk or simply don’t go.

I like to travel but I’m also aware of the impact.
So I will choose the destinations on that, I will research the alternative travel options, I consider the eco fuel surcharge although I don’t think they do much, and I will not travel. I won’t hop on a plane for a quick weekend trip unless required. When I went to see a dying relative, then yeah, the environment takes a backseat.
But all of that is MY decision and I have to come to terms with it.

If you get a government funded health plan that pays cents of every tax dollar with zero premiums, why do expect cutting edge service?
Sure, there are likely people who make up their own stories and explanations of how the government is responsible and has to care for them because tax money and being a citizen and all that - but that’s their personal headcanon, not reality.