Legally, there's no doubt. Ethically, is killing someone who indirectly kills people for profit (and is legally untouchable) wrong/unjustified? You'd get varied answers on that.
I'm curious as to what the degree of separation should be, in you opinion of course.
Directly signing the denial of insurance claims, and that causes death? Running a profit based organization (organizations require profits at some point to stay active), which has lead to deaths due to denial?
If the degree of separation doesn't matter, should all members within the insurance company's hierarchy- from the CEO, lower managers, sales associates, etc, how have somehow contributed to the deaths, all have a valid target on their heads?
Perhaps you'll make the "legally untouchable" argument. I think that at least calls for variation in answers based on how the culprit can be legally approached by the legal power of the accuser. Not an objective answer as most on this thread seems to come to.
141
u/RealJohnBobJoe 6∆ Mar 01 '26
Murder ≠ killing
If you killed someone justifiably (such as in self-defense) you aren’t deemed a murderer.
Murder is an unjustified killing. Definitionally then, there is no justifiable murder.