But with this mentality corruption will just go unchallenged.
Its a huge risk, but the rewards for removing such a big chunk of corruption is huge. So I guess you're right, it is more of a mindset thing.
Its a huge risk, but the rewards for removing such a big chunk of corruption is huge. So I guess you're right, it is more of a mindset thing.
Billionaires are our kings. Jeff Bezos' wealth is 3 times the GDP of North Kora, which has a standing army of over a million people. They are more wealthy than a number of independent states. Do you think he couldn't fund and equip 100,000 mercenaries if his monopoly were threatened? When a peasant threatens his power, he doesn't even need to do that: a single assassin is enough. Replace Bezos (who I doubt would order a hit but you never know) with a Russian oligarch (who absolutely would order a hit) and you have your explanation.
The comparison of his total net worth to the North Korea's yearly GDP and army size is irrelevant.
If he even tried to raise an army to resist the will of the US government, they would seize his assets so fast his head would spin.
That's not to say money doesn't buy political influence, but it's a much subtler kind of influence.
NK may not have that much worth in USD, but it occupies territory and has military force to back its claim, and that military is motivated by things other than USD numbers on computers somewhere.
If he had covertly planned ahead and already had his mercenary army in place maybe. (though maybe he'll have the secret code for all the drones....)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/americas/el-chapo-son-operati...
The difference in what's basically a warlord who already has loyal troops to command, controls territory, and assets that can't be easily seized and Jeff Bezos is too much to make a comparison remotely useful.
In abstract, from the numbers sense (dollars), sure, your argument stands that test.
However, it does not stand the common sense test: what are said contractors going to do once the gig is over? Part of mil contracting is keeping yourself in the good graces of the sugar-daddy government to keep the funds rolling into the future when needs arise. Oh yeah, and also avoid going to prison (for reference, see Blackwater / US Contractor indemnification in Iraq).
This person is dead. We can thus deduce the reward is death. While that is a big reward, it's not one most people want.
Basically, it's the next level of "do unto others". To determine whether your action is right or wrong, ask yourself what would happen to society if every person performed that action as a matter of habit.
In small children "theory of mind" develops, the child supposes that perhaps this experience they're having, whatever that is, is also an experience the other people who look like them are having. And this theory works well, you can make useful predictions with it. Because Daddy is like you, and you like apple drink better than pond water, you can surmise correctly that Daddy will prefer the apple drink over the pond water too. Being smacked in the face (e.g. by your own unco-ordinated limbs) hurts, and so it's not a surprise that Daddy doesn't like a smack in the face either.
But the explanatory power of theory of mind is limited if you stop there. I don't like Peanut Butter. But it turns out that other people _do_ like Peanut Butter, their minds are similar but not identical. If I see some bread with Peanut Butter spread on it, to me that bread is ruined, but to someone else that's a delicious snack.
I don't want to marry. So for me a Categorical Imperative forbidding marriage is no problem. But it's clear to me that other people value marriage and so, against my better judgement, it should continue to be permitted. Some people feel marriage should be restricted, that couples ought to be of opposite biological sex, or the same skin colour, or of child-bearing age, or whatever other constraint. I have no dog in that fight but it's simplest if we're to allow something I have no need for, to assume that everybody will avail themselves of this custom only if they value it, and so it may as well be open to everyone until we see some clear evidence of ill-effects.
I am not saying go out and get yourself killed, just that I can see the reasons some people do try to get this info out.
You're mixing reward with outcome. The outcome is that the person was murdered. That's something entirely different from a reward.