Please note – The following question is hypothetical. I’m suicidal at this point but not homicidal, not enough to act on the idea.
Suppose you could divide all people into three groups – moral (1), immoral (-1) and amoral (0). Depending upon the number of people in each group, a certain sum total of morality in the world could then be calculated, say, x.
If you belong to the first group, your being around adds to making this world a better place. If you’re in the second group, the world is worse off because you’re in it. The third group doesn’t affect much.
In general, evil people prefer self-preservation no matter the cost and spread like cancer. For instance, take religious forecasts for this century. Fanatics will outnumber atheists despite rapid spread of scientific outlook, because fanatics cling to life much more tenaciously than atheists, and breed as if on a mission to produce more indoctrinated nutcases than there are free-thinking children of secular parents. This is just one example. In every aspect, assholes will take up space that you will leave behind. It’s about ratio of good vs. bad – if you’re a good person, your exit will leave the world with one less good person. Put another way, your exit will leave the world with one extra bad person.
So, my question is – ‘Given that you’re relatively moral’, do you feel obliged to help maintain the moral equilibrium of the world after you’re gone? Do you feel like compensating the world for your absence by removing one (or more) decidedly harmful specimen of the immoral group?
P.S. – Its only a theoretical argument and I’m not proposing violence, so there’s no need for alarm. As for myself, I don’t have it in me to kill a trapped mouse.