Hatred often makes you want to hurt people, but people hurt peope in the name of greed more often, and not only with less potential for guilt, but is often the cause of delusional accolades and reassurance both from within oneself and from others.
Hypothetical:
A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.
A bumpkin gets in a fight with someone he hates the melanin of because he’s a moron and kills them.
Who did more damage to humanity that day? They’re both, I want to say evil but evil is subjective, they’re both highly antisocial, knowingly harmful behaviors, yet one correctly sends you to prison for a long time if not forever, while the other, far more premeditated and quite literally calculated act, is literally rewarded and partied about. Jim Kramer gives you a shout out on tv, good fucking times amirite!
Edit: and this felt relevant to post after someone tried to lecture me about equating layoffs to murder.
“Coca-Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire. Tobacco companies suppressed cancer research. And Boeing knew that its planes were dangerous. Corporations don’t care if they kill people — as long as it’s profitable.”
https://jacobin.com/2020/01/corporations-profit-values-murder-culture-boeing
So in your hypothetical, the best choice is for the CEO to continue paying 10,000 people for doing work that is apparently no longer necessary, basically as charity?
Look at it from the other direction: Those 10000 did nothing wrong. And yet some of them lost their livelihoods, some lost lives. The CEO, assuming he is the guy who started the company, and not someone else who came in, could not create the company without them, yet the CEO is the only one who gets rich.
Again, the company does not need to fire them, they can be routed to other divisions to other workflows, they can take some responsibility from other workers, but they were not, they were fired, simply to enrich someone who already got richer from their work, while giving them a small sliver of the reward.
And if they are valuable contributors they will find new opportunities.
Again, paying people based on past contributions is not healthy for anyone. Take sports teams for illustration. It would be like a sports team continuing to pay athletes long after their prime and into older ages regardless of value. This means these athletes no longer find new ventures (coaching, scouting, business avenues) and the team sputters taking the whole organization down.