> I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. I would go one step f

> I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. I would go one step further. Most people don't have any unified framework at all for making moral decisions. It is mostly a disparate patchwork of religious parables, quotations from famous historical figures, and the laws/constitution of the country they live in. All mixed together with their "gut feelings" that ultimately decides which of the above sometimes contradictory principles should take precedence under a given scenario. For instance, most people would read the above headline and declare that life is sacrosanct and should take precedence over greed every time. And then you ask them how they would morally justify spending $10k on travel expenses or eating out, when they can instead use that money to save a human life - and I've yet to hear someone give a good answer to that question. I know philosophy students who have literally decided that "there's no such thing as morality", because figuring it out seems completely impossible. I think that's the wrong approach. As difficult and unappealing as it may seem, I think it behooves us to find and practice a consistent and comprehensive moral framework. The one I believe and endorse is Utilitarianism, as controversial as that may be. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I at least hope they will try to find their own answer.