This killing has created a very difficult question.
If killing one of these CEOs can save tens of thousands of lives, then it is the morally correct thing to do.
And that's a huge problem with the system. Murder should never be the morally correct thing, but in this case it could save so many lives its impossible to argue against it being the right thing.
All the "my claims magically aren't being denied anymore after the 4th" posts are telling me that this action has already started saved lives. Theres a national conversation now happening about how the industry got so bad that more Americans are celebrating this execution than not, and what needs to be done to (nonviolently) fix the problem. Publicly killing a CEO proved to be an effective solution literally in the first 24 hours.
It's gonna take more than just one exec, its gonna take dozens, if not hundreds of them. But the math still checks out in terms of it being the moral thing to do.
They're killing people by the hundreds of thousands through their greed.
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
Sorry, but that's the reality we live in. There are mass murders committed all the time by companies and governments, and while we may stand against some of them (even to the extent where we endorse vigilante justice), we approve of, either directly or by our silence, many other mass murders. I firmly believe there isn't anyone on this world who wasn't complicit in some corporate or governmental mass murders, and as such, I don't think there will ever be agreement which CEOs and politicians to shoot and which to spare.
Simple, CEOs are not human beings. Because murder can only happen between human beings, the top picture is mislabeled. I'd call it something like pest control.