If someone steals something they are arrested but if someone sends in troupes under dubious pretence killing thousands of civilians, ruining the lives of their own combatants why is it that they just float off to a life of ease? Shouldn’t high office hold high accountability. There must be factors that give them immunity. What are they?
I have many relatives and friends who have died from tobacco related illnesses. We should all care about this. Tobacco is different even from other ‘vices’ (including alcohol) in that it has no health benefit even at low doses. Selling tobacco with its known problems is a ‘dangerous act that knowingly puts the health of others at risk’. These are two important manslaughter criteria. Is the absence of ‘intent to kill’ enough to exclude it?
I’m fascinated by moral integrity, greed and art. I also have mixed feelings about didacticism, especially in art. My question stems from a recent ethics forum centred on Art and Ethics where an esteemed ethicist provoked the audience with the statement that the only ethical art was one that instructed or commented on Climate Change (and/or social inequality).