Someone made a distinction between persons who perpetrate individual acts of violence, and those who cause comparable harm in making ‘business decisions.” I cannot twist my brain around that.
What makes the first, reprehensible, and the latter… not so much. Collateral damage, maybea?
What is a killing by organized crime? Drug traffickers, if not, a business decision?
Somehow, the LAW, sprinkles magic exoneration dust over those who deny life saving care. So something is wrong with the LAW itself–let’s skip ahead here–not LAWS– THE Law and the political/social structures that define and make it.
This leaves us facing a Giant Abstraction– a monster that is killing us selectively.
How does one fight an Abstraction, one that is perfectly constructed to dismantle and remake any contrary abstraction into its own image?
Maybe the only way, is to brush aside all those pretty words about morality, realizing that they aren’t about morality, but exemplary forms of defending the indefensible?
We need to think more deeply about what is moral, what is right and wrong, when immersed in a structure that owns the very language with which we think.
Jacob Russell's Magic Names 