The Death Pool | What Money Can't Buy #6

[@KDNPARKER]

The moral risk of betting for or against the early death of an employee causes the objectification of a living thing and subsequent devaluation of all life. If it is okay to profit from the death or misfortune of another then death or misfortune no longer becomes cause for sympathy especially if there is no financial interest. To dehumanise one is to dehumanise all.

[@Yor_gamma_ix_bae]

Economic Malingering! That thing we find psychologists charging poor disability seekers with so often.

[@vinnieramone4818]

any money invested in things that can't possibly create value is diverted from things that can. a short position on a stock is based on either insider trading or information that's available to other investors

[@Yor_gamma_ix_bae]

Being homeless is a real easy thing to cure when you have been pampered your entire life huh?

[@johnellington1932]

Illegal. Be like fraud. You have stolen and profited. To know and not give is Selfishness. Destructive Behavior.

[@hendoiya]

In the case of show reviews, by putting their performance out as a product, their consenting naturally to being reviewed. Since the performer is of course implicitly consenting to a positive review, they must also consent to a negative review. Consent must not be divided directionally, or else information will be biased. Similarly, in the case of housing markets, if betting for the affirmative has been permitted (i.e. in the signing of the mortgage, or in secondary instruments), then necessarily betting in the negative must be given equal ethical status.

[@sveisa]

Did Prof Sandel almost tear up at the very end?

[@razvansghita]

Beutiful

[@afafssaf925]

One argument that I didn't see: people are profiting from everyone else's misery/unfortunate circumstances ALL the time. These kids that got into their universities did so because a lot of people get rejected. As soon as their universities start being less restrictive, their expected future salaries go down because the university isn't such a good signal. What about (really good) jobs? Thousands apply, only a tiny fraction goes for an interview and another tiny fraction gets the job. If you get the job, you're profiting from everyone's misery. ALSO, short sellers usually help the market stabilize. They make things more efficient and buy when things are going down to hedge. And I hope these clueless people who say "I think it's morally objectionable, therefore regulate it" get THE FUCK AWAY from any position of true power. I don't like MMA, but the notion that you should regulate it just because someone is getting punched is ridiculous. We're talking about ADULTS, who you trust to make decisions that they see as being of benefit to them. Who are you to say that someone shouldn't risk being punched in order to lift a trophy? None of your business.

[@miyalys]

You are assuming that someone being okay with being punched in the face doesn't impact other people. Someone consenting to dwarf tossing, as the earlier example, could normalize this view and treatment of dwarves which could both impact other dwarfs and whoever is spectating as well. When something can be reasonably said to have a general consequences for society it could potentially be banned even if it limits individual liberties. One could look at it from a utilitarian perspective, of whether the boon to that singular person outweights the negative effects on others. Not that it's a simple question to answer.