[anjel]

1st example was the progenitor of what eveolved into strict liability. (If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages. 2nd example is an illustration of that longheld legal precedent's being curiously ignored (nevermind the cost savings was a bum rush and livery costs are now higher than before the innovative advent) 3rd is a call to at least litigate who bears the downstream effects. Or perhaps we should just cancel public health measures and employ pestilence to solve the problem *organically.*

[ahepp]

> If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages

So if you’re a business offering poor quality services, and I come along and start offering higher quality services, I owe you damages for the impact I have on your business?

[wahern]

Morally, maybe? It's what people tend to implicitly assume when a large chain displaces local mom & pops. You can argue it's for the greater good in the long-term, but that doesn't settle the question of the immediate injuries. Is it the fault of the stock boy who lost his job that he worked for a less efficient employer? Maybe?

The whole encyclical's argument is that morality requires an accounting and response to the pain inflicted upon each individual, and human morality is a distinct set of rules and norms than economic, physical, or even civil laws. I think it also follows that it's not just, e.g., Walmart or OpenAI who bares some responsibility for ameliorating temporary suffering. And to the extent people use the encyclical as fodder in the usual anti-corporate rhetoric, then that's unfortunate.

And this is coming from the Catholic church. It turns alot of people off who in isolated contexts often perceive hypocrisy, but in its charity it has always considered the personal responsibility of those receiving it. It understands the struggles and inherent tensions that comes from trying to square individualized justice & mercy, selflessness, and the "greater good".

[s1artibartfast]

you gravely understand #1 if you apply it in a blanket manner. You are not liable for all damages and consequences, only a vary narrow subclass.

[NitpickLawyer]

> you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages.

so the people vs. otis, the people vs. IBM608, and so on? Has it ever worked?

[kelnos]

No, the 2nd example has nothing to do with that. You're drawing a false equivalence.