When United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed some defended the shooter Luigi Mangione. They argued that the immoral and exploitive practices of the insurance provider justified killing one of its leaders. Likewise, others argue that it is morally permissible to steal from major corporations because they make exorbitant profits. Herein we have the justification of murder and theft. What is going on here?
Partly it is a consequentialist moral framework that argues that the ends justify the means. Consequentialism judges the morality of an act solely by its perceived outcome. If the outcome is perceived as “good”, then any means necessary to accomplish that end can be justified. This ethical philosophy abandons fundamental ethical norms, which state that certain actions (like murder or theft) are inherently wrong, regardless of the perceived positive outcome.
Repeated extreme labeling plays a role in this mindset. When rhetoric continuously frames an opponent not merely as a flawed leader but as an existential threat or a “tyrant,” it allows individuals to rationalize violence. Getting rid of such a threat allows people to convince themselves that committing murder is acceptable, even obligatory. For most people, that labeling remains merely on a linguistic level. But for others, it can become an impetus for action. We see this logic play out in the manifesto of the person who attempted to assassinate President Trump this past week.
To protect civil society, we must reject these consequentialist permission structures, excise exaggerated labeling, and remember that evil actions are inherently unjustifiable, regardless of the desired outcome.
