• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    66
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Just because some of them indirectly kill people doesn’t make it moral to kill them. Maybe if it actually would make the world better, you could have a utilitarian argument for it, but as long as you just kill individual billionaires and not creating a new socialist system they’ll just be replaced by new billionaires. As I said, regardless of whether it’s moral to kill them, it won’t help.

    • GlockenGold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      All of them indirectly kill people. It’s impossible to be a billionaire and a moral person, as a moral person would spend that wealth to improve the lives of others. You can say that “oh but this billionaire runs a charity!”, but how much of their own wealth do they give to it? Would a moral billionaire rely on the money of others to make change in the world? Would they still be a billionaire if they truly wanted change?