A moral hazard is just when removing (or mitigating) the consequences for some risky behavior makes the behavior more common, thus potentially resulting in more harm than leaving the consequence in place would have. The stock example is insurance: if I know that in the event of my house burning down, insurance will compensate me for any losses, maybe I’m more likely to be careless with my lighter, leading to my house being more likely to burn down.
In that sense, causing a mass extinction in the name of shareholder value sort of is a moral hazard, because most capitalists are shielded from the direct harm associated with their actions, as those harms are exported to the global south and onto non-human species first.
But porky knowingly causing a mass extinction event because ‘muh shareholder value’ ISN’T a moral hazard?
Moral Hazard isn’t some “10 Commandments” type of thing, its a rhetorical device.
A moral hazard is just when removing (or mitigating) the consequences for some risky behavior makes the behavior more common, thus potentially resulting in more harm than leaving the consequence in place would have. The stock example is insurance: if I know that in the event of my house burning down, insurance will compensate me for any losses, maybe I’m more likely to be careless with my lighter, leading to my house being more likely to burn down.
In that sense,
causing a mass extinction in the name of shareholder value sort of is a moral hazard, because most capitalists are shielded from the direct harm associated with their actions, as those harms are exported to the global south and onto non-human species first.