Here's a woman who was busted trying to hire a hit man to kill her husband.
It's really creepy to watch the video, knowing that this woman is talking about murdering her husband.
Anyway, why did she choose to go this route? It was "easier than divorce" and she wouldn't have to expose herself or her family to shame, and she wouldn't have to break his heart. Well, I guess all that backfired on her. She'll end up divorced, shamed, and having broken the guy's heart far, far worse than asking for a divorce.
The police believe she wanted his life insurance money. She is 21.
I mean, in the video, she believes she's talking to a hit man. Does she need a reason? Does she really have to explain herself? Why justify a hit man's job to the hit man? No need to and a hit man that asks is being, shall we say, unprofessional. "Look, I want the guy out of my life, stop asking questions, ok?" should have been her answer.
That is exactly what a heartless murderer would have said.
But she said what she said and she revealed herself big time in it. I believe that she wanted the money, realized that murder was the only way to get it, BUT she had to convince herself murder was something that she really wanted to do. She probably repeated those reasons like a mantra until she finally felt comfortable trying to find a real hit man.
And thus she rationalized herself into murder. She found plausible rationales that justify what she wanted to do. It's easier and quicker and probably cheaper than divorce, it saves on all the aggravation, disappointment, and heartbreak. Murder is good in this case, these reasons make it a good thing to do.
This is what utilitarianism and consequentialism end up in. If the practical value of an act determines its ethics, and not what the act itself consists in, then all you need to do is find a practical value in what you want to do, and voila! it's ethical.
All of the major bioethical issues of today do the same thing. Why is euthanasia ok? Because it ends the suffering of the patient, it saves money, it allows people to die with dignity, it preserves their autonomy - not saying any of these reasons are valid. But note: They are reasons, not arguments. There is no argument that killing an innocent person is ok. The difference between euthanasia and murder is, well, the reasons used to justify the act. And look at how similar they are. Suffering and heartbreak and practicality and money.
Her difficulty was that, ethics aside, murder is still illegal. Yet maybe one day, there will be no specific laws against murder. Murder will be defined as killing an innocent person without sufficient reason, and murder trials will be about not whodunit, but about establishing sufficient reason.