9 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: The UnitedHealthcare Gunman Understands the Surveillance State
Genuine question.. is it immoral to eliminate a major contributor to the pain and suffering of thousands? Millions?
I find it very utilitarian at the very least, and not really immoral when you consider the bigger picture - certainly not appallingly immoral.
Comment by fifelo at 06/12/2024 at 22:43 UTC*
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I think once you start granting people some level of impunity for killing people, you start to go down a very slippery slope, so I think the notion of vigilante justice is really really scary, because what you do is you stop agreeing to settle political problems politically you have decided political problems will be solved with violence. That sword cuts both ways. That being said, I don't think the current state of the US medical system is one that won't start producing more of these outcomes. The reason you condemn things like this is because you quickly arrive at a point where you're also giving people you disagree with the right to kill people they find morally reprehensible. Whether or not I agree with it or even support it is less important than my willingness to adhere to a social contract where we don't kill each other. However, I do find the argument that these healthcare companies have directly been responsible for the deaths of many people in the name of profit to be compelling. I don't think the US healthcare will look the same way in 20 years, and I don't think that change is going to come easily.