I'm reminded of this thread of thinking as a result of this recent turn of events which places the juxtaposition of the two scenarios in the spotlight.
We, as humans-in-societies, are good at being appalled with people who do something horrible - say violent or exploitative - to another person or a few people. I call that 'acute' and 'isolated' harm - a great injustice, usually perpetrated by an individual or small group, and mostly affecting an individual or small group. Society's condemnation of such acts is swift and decisive, sometimes even before due-process has been carried out.
There's another kind of harm, however, about which we're no where near as aware or decisive in our response: when the unjust cruelty or imposed suffering is distributed across many, especially if that suffering is relatively minor compared to 'death'. We have no social justice metrics or even language that helps us express (never mind balance), say, the amount of outrage we should feel about something which causes frustration and anxiety for millions... compared, to, say, the horrible killing of one. We fixate the latter every time we engage with the news media... but we ignore the former nearly every day. Some of us even contributed a bit to the former in the jobs we do every day.
And yet, we have mechanisms like 'class action' lawsuits which seek to redress the latter situation, often long after the injustice was perpetrated, and often at great cost to those seeking that justice.
Listening to these thoughts we see the contrast between the two forms of harm writ large: the idea that 'responsible citizens' like politicians, need to condemn the acute action (to avoid being labelled insensitive or to be approving of such behaviour), before they issue their 'but'... at which point they attempt to explain how the widespread but less intense injustice might lead to the acute isolated event.
Everyone in society has a pretty clear sense of justice in the 'acute' scenario. But what about people who, through their conscious action, do a smaller amount of harm to many people, especially if they, say, work for the claims department of a health insurer, or are a corporate executive, determining the policies and direction of such an entity? What is their culpability? To what extent should they be held to account for their actions or lack of fortitude in preventing those actions? How do we balance or impressions of a person who's perpetrated a more modest injustice on those, say, millions of undeserving people? In many cases it seems, we applaud them. Especially if they work for a corporation - they're just being 'shrewd' or 'understanding the way businesses work'. We even have the saying "all's fair in love, war, and business'. I revile that sentiment as 'reputation laundering'.
Perhaps we need to re-evaluate our position on those bad actors and the framework in which their actions are given 'societal immunity' and even, abhorrently, admiration (in some circles).
I propose that we stage a marketing coup. So that, alongside the bizarrely persistent idea of 'Trickle Down Economics', we can have 'Wicked Up Justice'. Except, unlike TDE, which is entirely farcical, we will ensure WUJ - the idea that those leading the perpetrating of harm of the many for their shareholder's (and their own gain) are inevitably brought to justice and forced to face those their actions have harmed - is an absolute certainty.
Add new comment