Re:Three Women Blinded by Unproven Stem Cell Treatments
by vidarh on Friday March 17, 2017 @03:08PM
(#13896984)
> If a company deliberately sells a faulty product that kills a customer, they should be treated just like a common criminal who breaks into someone's house and shoots them
I think they should, if they knew what the consequence would be.
But the problem is not so much the extreme cases as the borderline cases where it is hard to prove intent, and hard to prove the understood the severety of the consequences.
Should I be allowed to advertise my unhealthy products in ways that implies they're good for you? Do it to a large enough audience, and it'll likely kill, but not directly. We know more than enough about human willpower to know that to drag out "free will" in those contexts is meaningless.
Now consider how long it took us to get to a consensus of the danger of tobacco, and how long it took us to start penalising the tobacco industry for their deceit in fighting regulation, and consider how much higher the stakes would be if it was not about regulating them but about locking up their executives.
I think they should, if they knew what the consequence would be.
But the problem is not so much the extreme cases as the borderline cases where it is hard to prove intent, and hard to prove the understood the severety of the consequences.
Should I be allowed to advertise my unhealthy products in ways that implies they're good for you? Do it to a large enough audience, and it'll likely kill, but not directly. We know more than enough about human willpower to know that to drag out "free will" in those contexts is meaningless.
Now consider how long it took us to get to a consensus of the danger of tobacco, and how long it took us to start penalising the tobacco industry for their deceit in fighting regulation, and consider how much higher the stakes would be if it was not about regulating them but about locking up their executives.