atomic blueberry

With the Charlie Kirk debate ongoing, it raises an interesting question: At what point is killing a person morally good? This isn’t a new thing - Luigi Mangione, death penalties, every war ever has had this dilemma.

Arguably, Charlie Kirk was detrimental to society, and the world would be better off without him. But then, where’s the line? Do we kill Karens by the same logic? What about school bullies, or annoying coworkers? They used this argument in Nazi Germany, where they claimed criminals and disabled people only took away from the common happiness.

On the other hand, in a utilitarian sense, while we did lose one person, it means it could save more lives down the road. One less advocate for school shootings, one more vote for a better candidate who would help people instead of helping themself, one less obstacle towards a better future. After all, killing Osama bin Laden saved lives, and we all treated that as a good thing.

I have no answers, only questions and a vague feeling of schadenfreude. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.

2 months ago | [YT] | 0