You're right, it’s not. I just don’t think that’s what they are doing most of the time.A selfish motive isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the greater good. Based upon some of the writings of the Minneapolis shooter, Im sure he thought the world would be better without him in it.
It brings up another unanswerable question though: does (or can) someone really act amorally? Or does everyone twist the facts and reasoning in their head to make themselves the good guy?
A selfish motive isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the greater good. Based upon some of the writings of the Minneapolis shooter, Im sure he thought the world would be better without him in it.
His thoughts may have been correct, but his actions contradicted them. Not that I thought that freak actually had any rationale left.
does (or can) someone really act amorally
Yes. There are plenty of examples of people who take a life who knew that they were taking a life.
It brings up another unanswerable question though: does (or can) someone really act amorally? Or does everyone twist the facts and reasoning in their head to make themselves the good guy?
I think you'd be hard pressed finding an example of someone acting "amorally" -- for some definition of amorality -- who hasn't rationalized or justified their actions. And it doesn't have to be in one of these extreme situations either. It happens every day in business, law, politics, or auto repairs.
Your title misframes the issues covered in the article. They are better stated this way:
Does the state have a duty to spend hundreds of thousands or million to keep an elderly or very ill person with no chance of recovery alive?
Should the state be able to outlaw an individual (of sound mind) choice to die?
I'd say no to both.
I would frame it differently as well, as "We (both individually or as a society) have a duty to not prolong needless suffering." Nuanced difference, I will grant you.