Something has taken hold in America that is particularly toxic. Namely, too many people seem to believe that any grievance justifies any response to rectify it. And this past week, we’ve seen a particularly dangerous example of this playing out on the internet and in the media.
Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was murdered on a sidewalk in midtown Manhattan in what seems to be an assassination. The police called it a targeted killing. It seems likely that his status as the CEO of a major health care company is the reason someone wanted him dead, but there is no way to know for sure yet. Regardless, within hours, the internet was abuzz with people justifying, or minimizing, Thompson’s apparent assassination because of their grievances with health insurance companies. Some of the posts were so offensive that I blocked numerous people on social media for taking this stance.
The people that were justifying a premeditated killing need to have a good, hard think and undertake an examination of their own consciences, and of reality. Their usual take amounted to this: Since the health care industry is flawed, it leads to people dying, ostensibly due to corporate greed. It is therefore OK to justify, and even celebrate, Thompson’s cold-blooded murder.
Per the Daily Beast, one doctor posted on Reddit, “I cannot even guess how many person-years UHC has taken from patients and their families through denials … It has to be on the order of millions. His death won’t make that better, but it’s hard for me to sympathize when so many people have suffered because of his company.”
The American health insurance industry is flawed, and the greater good is not always at the forefront of the minds of health care executives. UnitedHealthcare may be more flawed than most, as some say — I have no way of knowing this. But by its very nature, any health care system is making life and death decisions with limited resources.
Moreover, any company that seeks to furnish health care, however unevenly and imperfectly, and even with the goal of making a profit, is doing at least partly a good thing, not intentionally committing evil. Comparing real-world, flawed efforts in business to some pie-in-the-sky, theoretical health care industry, and then using that comparison to justify or minimize murder is intellectually vapid and morally abhorrent.
I can’t help but wonder if that doctor on Reddit, or his fellow doctors and nurses, ever made a mistake in treatment that led to someone’s death or injury, or if someone might deem his own profit from his job excessive. Under his own logic, there’s no reason why he also might be seen as unworthy of sympathy if something wicked were to befall him. And tragically, doctors, too, have been killed by angry patients.
You can see similar flawed logic playing out, in big or small ways, in those who justify Hamas attacks on innocent Israelis, justify the pardon of the plainly guilty Hunter Biden because his dad is president and account for delegitimizing elections and attacking the Capitol. But not only are all these stances simply wrong, they don’t work. Justifying Hamas doesn’t help Palestinians, excusing Hunter’s bad behavior doesn’t “own the cons,” and attacking the Capitol doesn’t strengthen America, or even help MAGA’s political goals, particularly in the long term. Certainly, murdering Thompson doesn’t fix the insurance industry.
“The end doesn’t justify the means” is a statement many of us are taught from childhood. It’s true, but it’s too simple. There is a relationship between means and ends. The truth is that not all ends justify all means.
A “sit in” on private property during the Civil Rights Movement was justified to end segregation, but not justified because you’re angry about the price of eggs. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus can be justified in the context of an existential Civil War but would never be justified for people upset about “unfair” tactics their legislative opponents are using. The problem with those justifying or minimizing Thompson’s murder is that there is little connection or balance between the actions taken and the end sought.
First, premeditated murder can never be justified. Second, Thompson’s role in an imperfect system is not an act of aggression, nor is taking action against him personally (let alone violent action) likely to improve the health care system. The murder is just that, and attempting to justify or minimize it is not about logic, reason or sound moral judgment, but blind rage.
Anger itself is not wrong, but it can lead us to do wrong things. There has to be a direct, comparable connection between the means and ends, and whatever means taken cannot be more destructive than the ends gained. No amount of anger, justified or not, changes that. In our current age, too many of us seem to have forgotten this.
Cliff Smith is a lawyer and a former congressional staffer. He lives in Washington, D.C., where he works on national security related issues. His views are his own.