It's exactly the same logic. You can't just take your own set of issues, say you're obviously right about everything, and then factor out everybody else's big issues. If you make a consequentialist argument for murdering insurance executives, other people do in fact get to use the same moral logic to stop things you disagree with them about, like gender-affirming care and abortion.
being directly responsible for someone’s death is just not the same as having a difference of an opinion (like we are having). I will definitely not try and hunt you down… however, if you are responsible for a death of my loved one - that might be another story…
jokes aside, I am not saying this tragedy was justified in any way but we are not talking here about “opinions” and “religion” for sure
Sure. Again: if you just hate the guy and have no compunctions about saying why after he's murdered, then whatever, that's not interesting enough to argue about. But if you're literally saying "this was good and more like this would be better" --- and some people are --- that is a notably warped proposition.
You can say that you are murdering people by posting on HN instead of working more and donating the money to charity.
>At what point is defending their murdering of people an acceptable approach? :)
We have laws that define where your responsibility starts and ends. For a random citizen, you have 0 obligation to help someone pay their healthcare bills.
For a health insurance company, they have a legal obligation to spend 85% of revenue on member healthcare, with all expenses and profit coming from the remaining 15%. This is codified by the ACA 85/15% law passed under Obama. United meets this obligation.
By that logic, every health system in the entire world is murdering people constantly. Meanwhile: I'm talking about a guy walking up to an executive and shooting him in the chest.
If we throw up our hands and accept that each individual can be the judge of injustice, and execute whatever retribution they see fit, these individuals also meet that criteria.
By abandoning democratic law, you also abandon 3rd party discretion and control over which injustices are legitimate.