Caroline Zhang
*This article was written on February 19th, 2025, and does not reflect the most recent events regarding the Luigi Mangione case.
For the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, the 4th of December, 2024, began like any other. Thompson walked briskly across 6th Avenue, crossing the street toward the New York Hilton Midtown, mind solely on the company conference he was about to attend. But, in just a sliver of time– 5 minutes to be precise– Thompson would find himself abruptly shot from behind with three 9-millimeter rounds that killed him almost instantly.
After five days and a nationwide manhunt, 26-year-old Maryland Ivy League graduate, Luigi Mangione, was taken into custody as a suspect. Three bullet casings are found at the site of the assassination, engraved with the words, “delay”, “deny”, and “depose”–phrases used to describe the tactics health insurance companies use to deny insurance claims–leading to many believing that Mangione’s alleged crimes were motivated by personal grievances with the U.S. health insurance system. In the days that followed his arrest, a whirlwind of social media posts, news articles, and videos would claim that he was either a ‘modern Robin Hood’, a cold-blooded murderer, or something in between.
The unique circumstances and motivations of Mangione’s case have sparked debate on morality, and nearly three months later, the public continues to be divided on the issue. We asked various CDNIS students for their opinions on the Luigi Mangione case and its effects and received varying responses.
Initial Reactions to the Case
When the news of Mangione’s alleged actions broke, many students were shocked by its brazen nature. “I didn’t expect the killing of a high-profile [figure] in broad daylight”, stated one student, noting that it was “quite satirical” that the bullets found on the site of the assassination were printed with the words, “delay”, “deny”, and “depose”.
Other students expressed less shock, viewing it as a predictable act against what they saw as an unjust system in America. “I was honestly expecting…some kind of terrorist act like that… against the billionaire class in the US,” one student reflected, “My opinion on healthcare and public services in the US as a whole has always been that it was not made to benefit the working class and it will probably never benefit the “average American”.
The Grey Area of Morality
Opinions on the morality of Mangione’s actions vary widely. Some students argued that while his intention might be morally driven— aiming to attack systemic issues in healthcare— the act itself is inherently immoral due to its violent and targeted nature. One student expressed, “Morality is hard to define as it can come from different aspects. The intention is moral as it was [intended] to bring justice to millions affected by the healthcare system. However, I believe…the action is immoral.” Another student suggested that if radical actions could lead to significant positive change by reframing public discourse around class disparity, they perhaps could be justified from a point of view: “So…murder is wrong, but I feel…we can justify an action if it creates more positive change than the harm done. [This has]… changed the scope of [the debate] and inspired people to come together and [re]frame the debate [to be focused on] the average person vs. [a] billionaire.”
After understanding CDNIS students’ perspectives on the issue, the impulse to justify Mangione’s alleged crime based on motivations rooted in the systemic issues of the US healthcare system is understandable. However, framing this as a case of the “ends justifying the means” is a moral oversimplification. Mangione’s actions have sparked a wave of debate, but it is crucial to differentiate between individual actions and systemic issues. Thompson’s role in denying insurance claims is the symptom of a deeper issue, rather than its root cause. Whether it is effective and morally just to direct grievances from systemic injustices toward one man instead of the system itself remains to be seen, and the outcome of Mangione’s case will likely play a significant role in determining the acceptable limits of actions in the name of activism today