December 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a targeted attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown hotel in Manhattan.

UnitedHealthcare is one of the US’s largest health insurers, and they’re criticized for unethical practices like denying coverage to people in need of health care, delaying treatments, and making many patients incur out-of-pocket expenses.

The shell casings at the crime scene had the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose” inscribed on them.

“Deny” – Denial of healthcare claims.
“Defend” – Corporate defense against lawsuits or negative public opinion.
“Depose” – Legal depositions taken during disputes or lawsuits, possibly implying taking action or forcing accountability.

Many people are rooting for the shooter. Why? Isn’t killing bad? Is this vigilante justice?

It’s clear that this isn’t a random act of violence. It was premeditated. The assailant had a reason or a possible justification for the killing.

Not all killing is morally wrong. Some killing is justified. For example, the easiest case is self-defense: if somebody is threatening your life or the lives of your loved ones, and the only way to stop them is to kill them, that killing is what most people think is morally okay. We reflect this in the law.

But what’s morally okay and what’s legally okay is not always the same. For example, if you kill somebody who abused thousands of children, it might be morally okay but legally not okay; legally, that child abuser should be arrested, have a trial, and spend their life in jail. We have a political structure where it’s the government’s job to punish people, and individuals can’t go around enacting their own form of vigilante justice. If you kill that child abuser, then you broke the law and will probably go to jail, but some would argue that you were morally justified in doing so. Going even further, some might say you did good or had a duty to kill that child abuser, even if it meant breaking the law. The moral justification here could be something like: you stopped an evil, you got revenge for the parents, or you’re sending a message to other child abusers.

Now, what are the possible moral justifications for the killing of Brian Thompson that make people think this killing is okay?

Justification 1a: Brian Thompson, the individual, is an evil that must be stopped.
I don’t know much about Brian Thompson, but it’s not clear that he’s a bad person. He’s just in a job that does bad things. I’m sure he’s just another corporate executive who had a long career of working in an office every day, eventually being promoted to CEO, and just trying to make money doing his job to please shareholders. He’s just doing his job.

In Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt wrote about Adolf Eichmann, who played a central role in the Holocaust and managed the logistics of deporting Jewish people to extermination camps. Arendt observed that Eichmann wasn’t some monster or psychopath but a pretty boring person who thought his job was helping society. She coined the term “banality of evil,” the idea that evils in society aren’t carried out by morally evil supervillains but by normal people doing their jobs, complying with orders in a wider system, and ultimately being distanced from the larger evil consequences of their actions. Is the mailroom employee at UnitedHealthcare morally responsible for the company’s evils of denying insurance claims? Probably not. He’s not the one making decisions.

Does the CEO make all the evil decisions? Again, no. The CEO plays one role in maximizing shareholder profit, and this duty to maximize value is probably the root of a lot of evil decisions. Apparently, there was an AI implemented on his watch that rejected claims and had a 90% error rate. But it wasn’t Brian solely responsible for this. There’s a whole board of directors, multiple executives, and people who need to sign off on these decisions, and there are many dirty hands. And the only reason they implemented this was to maximize profits for shareholders; they don’t just get off on denying claims and love doing evil stuff. Of course, the CEO benefits from this evil. He makes about $10 million a year, which is a lot, but isn’t even in the top CEO salaries.

Brian Thompson is just some guy who happens to be the CEO of a shady company. It’s important not to make him the scapegoat for UnitedHealthcare. He probably would have been happy with the same pay working at some charity feeding blind orphans. Brian Thompson didn’t do anything himself that justified killing him.

Maybe a truly morally upstanding person would have quit working at such a healthcare company out of principle. Sure, maybe he’s a bit greedy for money, but who isn’t? Is he really more evil than oil companies contributing to pollution? Clothing companies using sweatshop labor? Or any modern technology company exploiting workers worldwide?

Justification 1b: UnitedHealthcare is an evil that must be stopped.
Maybe the killer didn’t care about Brian Thompson personally, and he was just a means to an end. They were instead trying to take down the corporation, and the CEO was the first target.

UnitedHealthcare is a giant corporate monster alongside many other corporate monsters these days that exist to maximize profits and shareholder value. We become parts of these monsters in our professional lives by working at these companies, and our jobs are ultimately to keep growing this monster by increasing profits. People with important functions for this monster are rewarded with high salaries. Jeff Bezos is the creator and controller of the monster Amazon, and he’s one of the richest men in the world for it. CEOs are like the caretakers of this monster.

UnitedHealthcare has done some pretty evil things. Investigations revealed that UnitedHealthcare’s prior authorization denial rate increased from 8.7% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2022, significantly higher than the industry average. We mentioned the AI model with the 90% error rate, which they’re being sued for, but they also have a bunch of other lawsuits around improper denial of care and HIPAA violations. But the biggest evil goes something like this: imagine you’re paying for your insurance every month like a responsible U.S. citizen, and suddenly your doctor tells you that you have cancer. That’s terrible, but at least you have insurance—oh wait, they’re saying your cancer medication isn’t covered, and you have to use up your savings. Oh no, your insurance is saying your nausea medication isn’t necessary, so now you have to suffer through chemo. Yay, you beat cancer, but because your insurance didn’t cover much and you had to go out-of-pocket, you not only have no savings but are now hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Or, much worse, you run out of money and can’t get any more treatment that UnitedHealthcare is denying coverage for, and now you’re left to die. Now your mother is left to die. Now your child is left to die.

But it’s not clear that the killing will stop the evil. Brian Thompson will be replaced, UnitedHealthcare will continue its practices, and it’s clear that the evil will persist.

Justification 2: revenge or retribution.
This leads to the next justification: revenge or retribution. Maybe the killer was trying to even the scales—an eye for an eye. Perhaps a loved one was denied coverage by UnitedHealthcare and died, and the killer wanted revenge. Although, again, it’s not clear if Brian Thompson is the one morally responsible for the death of their loved one. But maybe it’s more symbolic, and Brian Thompson was as good a symbol for UnitedHealthcare as any other employee there.

Popular ethical theories don’t really justify retaliatory killing or personal vengeance. Kant would probably say that killing out of vengeance cannot be universally willed without creating a world of chaos and lawlessness. Aristotle would probably say that vengeance is unlikely to be virtuous, and a virtuous person would seek justice through legal means. A utilitarian would probably say that retaliatory killing would cause more harm than good from cycles of revenge and social breakdowns, so if there’s more bad overall, then it’s morally unjustified.

But maybe this killing isn’t personal. Maybe the killer is vicariously acting for the millions of people suffering under UnitedHealthcare. This can be construed as some universal or divine form of justice carried out to punish UnitedHealthcare.

This is the world of Batman or the Punisher, where vigilante justice is the only justice left in a corrupt state. But again, it’s not clear that killing Brian Thompson really punishes UnitedHealthcare or makes things even with the victims. UnitedHealthcare, the soulless corporate monster, won’t feel this, and you can’t kill this monster with a bullet.