I wouldn’t call those “counterexamples” as I understand counterexamples (namely an example that counters a statement or belief). That would mean the examples would have to show that killing the villain did make the protagonist just as bad.
Like, in your Overwatch example, they didn’t become morally bad from killing the bomber. They were disbanded; the worsening situation was as a result of other bad people choosing to disband them. It’d be weird to lay it at their feet for killing a villian with political(?) connections.
I think the Overwatch story does present killing the bad guy as morally wrong. The story implies the push to disband Overwatch came from general public outrage due to Overwatch acting without regard for law, not due to that one guy’s connections specifically. It was also presented as the nail in the coffin: Overwatch had been behaving increasingly ethically dubiously after the threat they originally formed to combat was resolved. It’s part of a larger theme in the story: if a group is well intentioned, but their primary tool is violence, does that group have a legitimate role in pushing for the greater good?
I wouldn’t call those “counterexamples” as I understand counterexamples (namely an example that counters a statement or belief). That would mean the examples would have to show that killing the villain did make the protagonist just as bad.
Like, in your Overwatch example, they didn’t become morally bad from killing the bomber. They were disbanded; the worsening situation was as a result of other bad people choosing to disband them. It’d be weird to lay it at their feet for killing a villian with political(?) connections.
I think the Overwatch story does present killing the bad guy as morally wrong. The story implies the push to disband Overwatch came from general public outrage due to Overwatch acting without regard for law, not due to that one guy’s connections specifically. It was also presented as the nail in the coffin: Overwatch had been behaving increasingly ethically dubiously after the threat they originally formed to combat was resolved. It’s part of a larger theme in the story: if a group is well intentioned, but their primary tool is violence, does that group have a legitimate role in pushing for the greater good?