A discussion on consequences

[Kylie]

Imagine there's a man who is the boss of a big company. One day, he comes up with a way that will increase his company's profits by a billion dollars. However, as a purely unintended consequence of this idea, a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be saved from destruction. Because of this, several very rare species are saved from certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be rewarded for saving this rainforest, even though he had no intention of saving it?

Now imagine that, instead of saving the rainforest, his idea means that a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be completely destroyed. Because of this, several very rare species are doomed to certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be punished for destroying this rainforest, even though he had no intention of doing so?

 

[Shempster]

Punished or rewarded by whom I must ask.
That can change the entire answer.

 

[Kylie]

Punished or rewarded by whom I must ask.
That can change the entire answer.

Let's assume by high courts of whatever country this is in.

 

[bhsmte]

Imagine there's a man who is the boss of a big company. One day, he comes up with a way that will increase his company's profits by a billion dollars. However, as a purely unintended consequence of this idea, a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be saved from destruction. Because of this, several very rare species are saved from certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be rewarded for saving this rainforest, even though he had no intention of saving it?

Now imagine that, instead of saving the rainforest, his idea means that a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be completely destroyed. Because of this, several very rare species are doomed to certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be punished for destroying this rainforest, even though he had no intention of doing so?

It depends what you mean by "punishment".

In most advanced countries, destroying rain forests is going to be illegal and the person would face prosecution. If it was not illegal, chances are he would still face a level of social punishment, by a certain group of people and his reputation may be negatively impacted.

 

[Ken-1122]

Imagine there's a man who is the boss of a big company. One day, he comes up with a way that will increase his company's profits by a billion dollars. However, as a purely unintended consequence of this idea, a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be saved from destruction. Because of this, several very rare species are saved from certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be rewarded for saving this rainforest, even though he had no intention of saving it?

Yes!

Now imagine that, instead of saving the rainforest, his idea means that a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be completely destroyed. Because of this, several very rare species are doomed to certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be punished for destroying this rainforest, even though he had no intention of doing so?

Yes.

K

 

[GrowingSmaller]

He is guilty for being informed and yet not caring IMHO.

At least, and most importantly to him, its a attempt at negating his own personal reponsibility. And therefore his its also an attemt at abrogation of his most precious posession, his humanity, his soul, his will his "being destined to care" etc.


If hes object of concern is money, then he is falsely projecting himself onto his bank accopunt.

 

[Kylie]

It depends what you mean by "punishment".

In most advanced countries, destroying rain forests is going to be illegal and the person would face prosecution. If it was not illegal, chances are he would still face a level of social punishment, by a certain group of people and his reputation may be negatively impacted.

A fine or something. I think you know what I mean, please don't quibble over details.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Imagine there's a man who is the boss of a big company. One day, he comes up with a way that will increase his company's profits by a billion dollars. However, as a purely unintended consequence of this idea, a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be saved from destruction. Because of this, several very rare species are saved from certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be rewarded for saving this rainforest, even though he had no intention of saving it?

Now imagine that, instead of saving the rainforest, his idea means that a thousand square kilometers of rainforest are going to be completely destroyed. Because of this, several very rare species are doomed to certain extinction. But the boss doesn't care about this. He does not care about the rainforest one way or the other. Should the boss be punished for destroying this rainforest, even though he had no intention of doing so?

In America special places are protected. So that's not an issue. If the government allows this, then it would be the governments problem. I guessing there would be no consequences if the guy or country didn't care, except for the rainforest is gone.