There is a significant difference between BP and Carson that has nothing to do with sin or morality:
Many more human decisions lie between Carson writing her book and factory workers losing their jobs. Carson just made a persuasive case. Other people decided to accept the case and to implement bans, which in turn led to people losing jobs. In contrast, the only human decisions in the causal node just prior to the spill were BP’s, and no human decisions stand between the oil spill and the fishers being unable to fish. That, at least, is the common conception of the chain of events.
There is a significant difference between BP and Carson that has nothing to do with sin or morality:
Many more human decisions lie between Carson writing her book and factory workers losing their jobs. Carson just made a persuasive case. Other people decided to accept the case and to implement bans, which in turn led to people losing jobs. In contrast, the only human decisions in the causal node just prior to the spill were BP’s, and no human decisions stand between the oil spill and the fishers being unable to fish. That, at least, is the common conception of the chain of events.
As I said in the post, it is reasonable for BP to pay the fishers. The post is about the reasoning regarding the oilmen.