In my opinion, you are carefully tap-dancing around the definition of murder with the unlawful part. Look at the list of NZs VC winners. They killed (murdered) a lot. Were they all justified or were there one or two victims who were a more innocent?. I had a family member who was a Corsair pilot and killed dozens of Japanese, probably not ALL justified. Another was an infantryman, who stated "after we saw what the little yellow b......s did, WE NEVER TOOK prisoners. How does that fit? And the "lawful" bit can be rather flexible and morally dubious. Many resistance members in WW2 were murdered by the Nazis, SS, et al in accordance with German law at the time. Post War, it was good to see about 800 of the worst offenders (who mainly argued they acted lawfully), were strung up.
While it was murder in the United Healthcare case, I feel no sympathy for him. Sadly it will change little, except that healthcare premiums will rise as they will now expend many millions on personal security for executives, staff, buildings and facilites.
Your response conflates murder with other forms of killing, which undermines the argument. Murder is defined as the unjust and unlawful killing of a person, distinct from lawful killing in war or executions following due process. The examples you cite—soldiers in combat, lawful hangings of war criminals—are not murder under these definitions, even if some of the actions within those contexts might have been morally questionable.
Your claim that you “feel no sympathy” for Brian Thompson reveals a troubling disregard for the sanctity of human life. Whatever his flaws or the failings of the system he worked within, he was a human being whose murder was neither justifiable nor morally defensible.
Using historical atrocities to rationalise or minimise this killing is a deeply flawed argument. Condemning murder is not about excusing systemic issues but about upholding a universal principle: taking a human life in cold blood without lawful justification is wrong, no matter the context. To suggest otherwise abandons moral reasoning entirely.
Spot on. And the same goes for all those who stood up and applauded in the NZ Parliament when the abortion legalisation Bill was passed, allowing the murder of unborn children and the manslaughter of children who are born (i.e., those children born alive and are simply left to die). The depth of their depravity was shocking.
It was passed under the cover of 'Covid emergency' by Ardern's government - Family First (Bob McCroskie) were all over it then, but not many were listening... however they did publish on their website who in Parliament voted which way for what at the first and second readings. Read it and weep, Aroha.
The hatred of these politicians for their own species knows no bounds, and contrasts with their hand-wringing about other species. A few years ago much greater protection was afforded to a poisonous spider than we give to human beings, at any stage of life. If anyone so much as touches a spider egg, they have committed a crime: whereas, in the process of IVF, thousands of human eggs, fertilised and unfertilised, are experimented upon and often killed. Now, the government is crowing over their plan to find loving and “forever” homes for thousands of greyhounds that will be prohibited from racing: yet they do not lift a finger to find homes for the 16,000 human children that they instead use taxpayers money to KILL each year.
I'm not going into the particulars of the death of Brian Thompson, except to say that he certainly is dead and certainly shot to death. It is still early days of a controversial case, so it's best to wait for the other facts to be known with certainty before commenting further.
However, this statement:
"The deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning."
is an example of question begging. By calling it "unlawful," you have assumed the conclusion and baked it into the cake of your original definition. Similarly, in:
"Murder, the intentional and unjust taking of human life, is a grave transgression of the highest order." you do it again.
The crux of the matter here is not murder, which is wrong by definition, but rather homicide, which may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances. A murder is an illegal deliberate homicide, yet we cannot assume that the law is always right, just that it is the law.
We all know of many examples where the law has been wrong or even when right has been implemented wrongly by a tyrannical or incompetent government. If the deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning, then you have forbidden any violent action against a tyrant.
Rebellion is always illegal, but it is not always wrong.
Thanks for your feedback. Here is everything wrong in your comment:
"I'm not going into the particulars of the death of Brian Thompson..."
It’s convenient to avoid discussing the particulars, given that they’re central to the issue at hand. Without addressing the specifics of the case, your argument floats in an abstract vacuum, disconnected from the real-world ethical and moral violations that occurred. The deliberate avoidance of details undermines the strength of your position because ethical reasoning cannot be divorced from context.
It is still early days of a controversial case, so it's best to wait for the other facts to be known with certainty before commenting further."
If you believe it’s too early to comment, it's a bit odd that you then engage in the discussion? This line contradicts your willingness to criticise the core argument while refusing to grapple with the circumstances of the case itself. If facts are uncertain, your own argument lacks grounding as much as the critique you aim to provide.
"By calling it 'unlawful,' you have assumed the conclusion and baked it into the cake of your original definition."
This is a misunderstanding of the term "murder," which is defined as the unlawful and unjust taking of a human life. The argument you criticise explicitly acknowledges this definition. The lawfulness of the act is not merely an assumption but a fundamental aspect of the term itself. The statement "murder is wrong" is not question-begging; it’s a tautology reflecting the definition of the word.
"The crux of the matter here is not murder, which is wrong by definition, but rather homicide, which may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances."
This distinction between "murder" and "homicide" is accurate but irrelevant. The article is discussing murder, not homicide in general. Homicide can be justifiable in cases of self-defense or lawful execution sanctioned by legitimate authority, but murder —being unjust and unlawful—is inherently wrong. Your argument misrepresents the article’s focus and conflates two distinct concepts.
"We all know of many examples where the law has been wrong or even when right has been implemented wrongly by a tyrannical or incompetent government."
The fact that laws can be flawed does not justify Brian Thompson’s murder or weaken the universal ethical condemnation of murder as a concept. The critique implies that because laws are fallible, ethical judgments against murder should somehow be reconsidered. This is a non sequitur. The ethical wrongness of murder exists independently of whether or not particular laws or governments have been just in other contexts.
"If the deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning, then you have forbidden any violent action against a tyrant."
This is a straw man. The article explicitly focuses on murder, which is by definition an unjust killing. Tyrannicide, when undertaken in extreme circumstances, might be ethically justified under the principle of resisting oppression, but it is not "murder" as defined in the article. Equating tyrannicide with the cold-blooded killing of an insurance executive is completely wrongheaded.
"Rebellion is always illegal, but it is not always wrong."
Rebellion is irrelevant to the case being discussed. Brian Thompson was not a tyrant oppressing a population; he was a corporate executive. Conflating rebellion against tyranny with the assassination of a private individual distorts the conversation entirely. Moreover, even in the case of rebellion, ethical arguments must still account for proportionality, intent and necessity—none of which apply here.
I'll try to run through a few places where you are saying nothing at all and a few other places where you are simply incorrect.
I am avoiding the particulars of the Brian Thompson case. and it is correct to do so. The facts of the matter are still unknown. You have your speculations and I have mine, they may be correct but they cannot be known to a reasonable degree of certainty, therefore best avoided.
Your comment " The statement "murder is wrong" is not question-begging; it’s a tautology reflecting the definition of the word." is just an argument from definition, it isn't an argument from moral reasoning. It is valid in a linguistic sense, but it doesn't fully engage with the ethical complexities of the issue.
"Murder is wrong" is tautological, it tells us nothing at all, the real debate is about the ethical reasoning behind different types of homicide and the contexts in which killing might be justified or unjustified.
I am making a case regarding the moral permissibility of homicide, nothing more. Particularly in refutation of this:
"The deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning."
My comment was brief and I didn't use any specific real world examples partly because I assumed you would be familiar with many. However I will put forward two cases where the deliberate and unlawful taking of human lives CAN and WAS reconciled with ethical reasoning. The English hero Robin Hood and the American hero George Washington (and you can't complain about me using a medieval folk hero if you can use a fictional TV character).
We don't know how many men Robin Hood killed but there must have been at least some, he was using a longbow, not a taser and pepper spray. George Washington must have put thousands of men in their graves, good, loyal and ethical men too. He would have accepted their surrender and would have welcomed their defection to his side. But if they didn't, and they continued to stand against him, he killed them, and he killed them deliberately and unlawfully.
You concede the possibility of an ethical tyrannicide and proportionality, intent, and necessity are indeed elements to be considered. Figures like Robin Hood and George Washington met those criteria. However, tyrannicide shouldn't be limited to the just the killing of a wicked king. It can also encompass the killing of ministers, soldiers, and officers who enforce tyrannical policies. In a modern context, these officers could be the Chief Executive Officers of major corporations.
These individuals are hardly simple private citizens if they are operating in a public context and wielding significant power and influence. Therefore, ethical considerations about resisting oppression and injustice should apply to them as well.
Your arguments against murder have been purely formal and legalistic: 'Murder is unlawful, therefore it is wrong.' According to this view, once an execution has been officially sanctioned, it is ethically right, and any homicide that hasn't been sanctioned is ethically wrong.
However, when you talk about proportionality, intent, and necessity, you are introducing elements that are not necessarily encoded in the law. For example, a law stating, 'Whoever raises their hand in anger against one of the king's men shall be put to death,' could be perfectly legal without considering proportionality, intent, or necessity. Here the rebel is required to adhere to a code that the king is not. Such a situation is hardly equitable, is it?
You seem to be implicitly relying on, but not explicitly stating, a code beyond the law—a natural or God-given law. Many people have based their social codes on such an idea but were honest enough to state it openly.
In summary, we cannot say that it is the law which makes an action wrong because we know that the law itself can be wrong.
I detest the use of the words 'white privilege' but in this case it seems that the murderer felt fully entitled to kill his victim. His privileged background may have shaped his feeling of entitlement.
Liam I look forward to your articles. And you are much more experienced than me in things legal. Of course there is a ‘but’ coming.
This bloke was a symbol. I find myself torn. Normally I would utterly stick to the line of working within the law. And on this one I’m torn.
A bit like what Barry says, above. Sometimes you can kill people. Okay, yes it is illegal, so murder them. But, potato potaato? I find my certainty shaken.
Will the hot assassin trigger change in the health system in the US? If he does will this improve it? If it is improved will he have saved lives? Would you pull that lever and send the trolley down the tracks to kill one person and not seven? I am uncomfortable.
I suspect that many of those rationalising about that murder supported the "punch a nazi" movement aimed at MAGA supporters and similar during the first Trump presidency.
This is a grotesque tirade that trivialises the gravity of murder. To conflate systemic issues, however pressing or real, with the intentional, premeditated act of taking another human life is an exercise in ethical turpitude.
First, the suggestion that underfunding health systems or engaging in flawed economic policies constitutes structural legal murder is an distortion of language. This position is deeply cynical. Systemic inequities demand debate and mitigation but they they are not tantamount to the deliberate, calculated act of directly extinguishing a human life.
Second, the invocation of Robin Hood vigilante action against the so-called "1%" is an invitation to anarchy disguised as populist critique. It glorifies violence as a solution to social grievance, undermining the rule of law and the very fabric of civil society.
This is not righteous anger. It is a call for chaos. It is the language of those who would tear down without thought to what might replace come next.
The suggestion that "corporate tendencies" or neoliberal policies are equivalent to "sanctioned forms of violence" betrays a deep confusion between harm caused by complex systems and the moral culpability of individual action. Corporations and governments accountable should be held accountable but this does not merit descent into the abyss of justifying murder.
Moral clarity demands the condemnation of murder as the ultimate transgression against human dignity. It is infinitely worse than participation in a flawed economic system. Attempts to justify or minimise it, whether through misguided ideology or performative outrage, betray a lack of character.
May God have mercy on this person's soul because to endorse or romanticise murder, directly or indirectly, is to step into a darkness that imperils both the individual and collective conscience. May that darkness never prevail.
In my opinion, you are carefully tap-dancing around the definition of murder with the unlawful part. Look at the list of NZs VC winners. They killed (murdered) a lot. Were they all justified or were there one or two victims who were a more innocent?. I had a family member who was a Corsair pilot and killed dozens of Japanese, probably not ALL justified. Another was an infantryman, who stated "after we saw what the little yellow b......s did, WE NEVER TOOK prisoners. How does that fit? And the "lawful" bit can be rather flexible and morally dubious. Many resistance members in WW2 were murdered by the Nazis, SS, et al in accordance with German law at the time. Post War, it was good to see about 800 of the worst offenders (who mainly argued they acted lawfully), were strung up.
While it was murder in the United Healthcare case, I feel no sympathy for him. Sadly it will change little, except that healthcare premiums will rise as they will now expend many millions on personal security for executives, staff, buildings and facilites.
Your response conflates murder with other forms of killing, which undermines the argument. Murder is defined as the unjust and unlawful killing of a person, distinct from lawful killing in war or executions following due process. The examples you cite—soldiers in combat, lawful hangings of war criminals—are not murder under these definitions, even if some of the actions within those contexts might have been morally questionable.
Your claim that you “feel no sympathy” for Brian Thompson reveals a troubling disregard for the sanctity of human life. Whatever his flaws or the failings of the system he worked within, he was a human being whose murder was neither justifiable nor morally defensible.
Using historical atrocities to rationalise or minimise this killing is a deeply flawed argument. Condemning murder is not about excusing systemic issues but about upholding a universal principle: taking a human life in cold blood without lawful justification is wrong, no matter the context. To suggest otherwise abandons moral reasoning entirely.
Spot on. And the same goes for all those who stood up and applauded in the NZ Parliament when the abortion legalisation Bill was passed, allowing the murder of unborn children and the manslaughter of children who are born (i.e., those children born alive and are simply left to die). The depth of their depravity was shocking.
I only found out about that this week and I was sickened.
It was passed under the cover of 'Covid emergency' by Ardern's government - Family First (Bob McCroskie) were all over it then, but not many were listening... however they did publish on their website who in Parliament voted which way for what at the first and second readings. Read it and weep, Aroha.
Weep indeed. There are some things that our politicians do that completely pass my understanding and this is one of them.
The hatred of these politicians for their own species knows no bounds, and contrasts with their hand-wringing about other species. A few years ago much greater protection was afforded to a poisonous spider than we give to human beings, at any stage of life. If anyone so much as touches a spider egg, they have committed a crime: whereas, in the process of IVF, thousands of human eggs, fertilised and unfertilised, are experimented upon and often killed. Now, the government is crowing over their plan to find loving and “forever” homes for thousands of greyhounds that will be prohibited from racing: yet they do not lift a finger to find homes for the 16,000 human children that they instead use taxpayers money to KILL each year.
Strongly disagree.
I'm not going into the particulars of the death of Brian Thompson, except to say that he certainly is dead and certainly shot to death. It is still early days of a controversial case, so it's best to wait for the other facts to be known with certainty before commenting further.
However, this statement:
"The deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning."
is an example of question begging. By calling it "unlawful," you have assumed the conclusion and baked it into the cake of your original definition. Similarly, in:
"Murder, the intentional and unjust taking of human life, is a grave transgression of the highest order." you do it again.
The crux of the matter here is not murder, which is wrong by definition, but rather homicide, which may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances. A murder is an illegal deliberate homicide, yet we cannot assume that the law is always right, just that it is the law.
We all know of many examples where the law has been wrong or even when right has been implemented wrongly by a tyrannical or incompetent government. If the deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning, then you have forbidden any violent action against a tyrant.
Rebellion is always illegal, but it is not always wrong.
Thanks for your feedback. Here is everything wrong in your comment:
"I'm not going into the particulars of the death of Brian Thompson..."
It’s convenient to avoid discussing the particulars, given that they’re central to the issue at hand. Without addressing the specifics of the case, your argument floats in an abstract vacuum, disconnected from the real-world ethical and moral violations that occurred. The deliberate avoidance of details undermines the strength of your position because ethical reasoning cannot be divorced from context.
It is still early days of a controversial case, so it's best to wait for the other facts to be known with certainty before commenting further."
If you believe it’s too early to comment, it's a bit odd that you then engage in the discussion? This line contradicts your willingness to criticise the core argument while refusing to grapple with the circumstances of the case itself. If facts are uncertain, your own argument lacks grounding as much as the critique you aim to provide.
"By calling it 'unlawful,' you have assumed the conclusion and baked it into the cake of your original definition."
This is a misunderstanding of the term "murder," which is defined as the unlawful and unjust taking of a human life. The argument you criticise explicitly acknowledges this definition. The lawfulness of the act is not merely an assumption but a fundamental aspect of the term itself. The statement "murder is wrong" is not question-begging; it’s a tautology reflecting the definition of the word.
"The crux of the matter here is not murder, which is wrong by definition, but rather homicide, which may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances."
This distinction between "murder" and "homicide" is accurate but irrelevant. The article is discussing murder, not homicide in general. Homicide can be justifiable in cases of self-defense or lawful execution sanctioned by legitimate authority, but murder —being unjust and unlawful—is inherently wrong. Your argument misrepresents the article’s focus and conflates two distinct concepts.
"We all know of many examples where the law has been wrong or even when right has been implemented wrongly by a tyrannical or incompetent government."
The fact that laws can be flawed does not justify Brian Thompson’s murder or weaken the universal ethical condemnation of murder as a concept. The critique implies that because laws are fallible, ethical judgments against murder should somehow be reconsidered. This is a non sequitur. The ethical wrongness of murder exists independently of whether or not particular laws or governments have been just in other contexts.
"If the deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning, then you have forbidden any violent action against a tyrant."
This is a straw man. The article explicitly focuses on murder, which is by definition an unjust killing. Tyrannicide, when undertaken in extreme circumstances, might be ethically justified under the principle of resisting oppression, but it is not "murder" as defined in the article. Equating tyrannicide with the cold-blooded killing of an insurance executive is completely wrongheaded.
"Rebellion is always illegal, but it is not always wrong."
Rebellion is irrelevant to the case being discussed. Brian Thompson was not a tyrant oppressing a population; he was a corporate executive. Conflating rebellion against tyranny with the assassination of a private individual distorts the conversation entirely. Moreover, even in the case of rebellion, ethical arguments must still account for proportionality, intent and necessity—none of which apply here.
Thank you for your prompt response
I'll try to run through a few places where you are saying nothing at all and a few other places where you are simply incorrect.
I am avoiding the particulars of the Brian Thompson case. and it is correct to do so. The facts of the matter are still unknown. You have your speculations and I have mine, they may be correct but they cannot be known to a reasonable degree of certainty, therefore best avoided.
Your comment " The statement "murder is wrong" is not question-begging; it’s a tautology reflecting the definition of the word." is just an argument from definition, it isn't an argument from moral reasoning. It is valid in a linguistic sense, but it doesn't fully engage with the ethical complexities of the issue.
"Murder is wrong" is tautological, it tells us nothing at all, the real debate is about the ethical reasoning behind different types of homicide and the contexts in which killing might be justified or unjustified.
I am making a case regarding the moral permissibility of homicide, nothing more. Particularly in refutation of this:
"The deliberate, unlawful taking of a human life can never be reconciled with ethical reasoning."
My comment was brief and I didn't use any specific real world examples partly because I assumed you would be familiar with many. However I will put forward two cases where the deliberate and unlawful taking of human lives CAN and WAS reconciled with ethical reasoning. The English hero Robin Hood and the American hero George Washington (and you can't complain about me using a medieval folk hero if you can use a fictional TV character).
We don't know how many men Robin Hood killed but there must have been at least some, he was using a longbow, not a taser and pepper spray. George Washington must have put thousands of men in their graves, good, loyal and ethical men too. He would have accepted their surrender and would have welcomed their defection to his side. But if they didn't, and they continued to stand against him, he killed them, and he killed them deliberately and unlawfully.
You concede the possibility of an ethical tyrannicide and proportionality, intent, and necessity are indeed elements to be considered. Figures like Robin Hood and George Washington met those criteria. However, tyrannicide shouldn't be limited to the just the killing of a wicked king. It can also encompass the killing of ministers, soldiers, and officers who enforce tyrannical policies. In a modern context, these officers could be the Chief Executive Officers of major corporations.
These individuals are hardly simple private citizens if they are operating in a public context and wielding significant power and influence. Therefore, ethical considerations about resisting oppression and injustice should apply to them as well.
Your arguments against murder have been purely formal and legalistic: 'Murder is unlawful, therefore it is wrong.' According to this view, once an execution has been officially sanctioned, it is ethically right, and any homicide that hasn't been sanctioned is ethically wrong.
However, when you talk about proportionality, intent, and necessity, you are introducing elements that are not necessarily encoded in the law. For example, a law stating, 'Whoever raises their hand in anger against one of the king's men shall be put to death,' could be perfectly legal without considering proportionality, intent, or necessity. Here the rebel is required to adhere to a code that the king is not. Such a situation is hardly equitable, is it?
You seem to be implicitly relying on, but not explicitly stating, a code beyond the law—a natural or God-given law. Many people have based their social codes on such an idea but were honest enough to state it openly.
In summary, we cannot say that it is the law which makes an action wrong because we know that the law itself can be wrong.
On reflection, this was murder and is wrong. I think I joined a reverse lynch mob there for a while.
I detest the use of the words 'white privilege' but in this case it seems that the murderer felt fully entitled to kill his victim. His privileged background may have shaped his feeling of entitlement.
Liam I look forward to your articles. And you are much more experienced than me in things legal. Of course there is a ‘but’ coming.
This bloke was a symbol. I find myself torn. Normally I would utterly stick to the line of working within the law. And on this one I’m torn.
A bit like what Barry says, above. Sometimes you can kill people. Okay, yes it is illegal, so murder them. But, potato potaato? I find my certainty shaken.
Will the hot assassin trigger change in the health system in the US? If he does will this improve it? If it is improved will he have saved lives? Would you pull that lever and send the trolley down the tracks to kill one person and not seven? I am uncomfortable.
I suspect that many of those rationalising about that murder supported the "punch a nazi" movement aimed at MAGA supporters and similar during the first Trump presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html
https://www.vice.com/en/article/we-asked-an-ethicist-if-its-ok-to-punch-nazis-in-the-face/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nazi-punch-antifa_n_59e13ae9e4b03a7be580ce6f
This is a grotesque tirade that trivialises the gravity of murder. To conflate systemic issues, however pressing or real, with the intentional, premeditated act of taking another human life is an exercise in ethical turpitude.
First, the suggestion that underfunding health systems or engaging in flawed economic policies constitutes structural legal murder is an distortion of language. This position is deeply cynical. Systemic inequities demand debate and mitigation but they they are not tantamount to the deliberate, calculated act of directly extinguishing a human life.
Second, the invocation of Robin Hood vigilante action against the so-called "1%" is an invitation to anarchy disguised as populist critique. It glorifies violence as a solution to social grievance, undermining the rule of law and the very fabric of civil society.
This is not righteous anger. It is a call for chaos. It is the language of those who would tear down without thought to what might replace come next.
The suggestion that "corporate tendencies" or neoliberal policies are equivalent to "sanctioned forms of violence" betrays a deep confusion between harm caused by complex systems and the moral culpability of individual action. Corporations and governments accountable should be held accountable but this does not merit descent into the abyss of justifying murder.
Moral clarity demands the condemnation of murder as the ultimate transgression against human dignity. It is infinitely worse than participation in a flawed economic system. Attempts to justify or minimise it, whether through misguided ideology or performative outrage, betray a lack of character.
May God have mercy on this person's soul because to endorse or romanticise murder, directly or indirectly, is to step into a darkness that imperils both the individual and collective conscience. May that darkness never prevail.