[shawndrost]

My question is specifically about the judgements that uninvolved people have formed. I can't learn about this from my doctor, or from the victims' decision in the context of a highly-constrained kabuki dance.

It seems most commenters here are fine with a settlement that clears Purdue to sell opioids (for the benefit of victims), but not with a settlement that lets the Sacklers off with a fine. That is exactly the opposite of my moral intuitions. What gives?

Some questions are message board questions.