There are two men.
Source: Pexels
Both have just received one million euros.
The first man hoards his money and refuses to give it to anyone. He places it in a bank to gain interest for an indeterminate amount of time. While this happens, several of his acquaintances get sick because they cannot afford the medicine that would help them. The first man knows about their problems, but ignores them. Some of these acquaintances die.
The second man gives most of his money to organized crime, in exchange for their services. As a result of this exchange, several people of the second man's choosing are killed. The second man believed that all of them needed to die.
Law says second one, I say first one
You don't ditch your homies man
And some people really deserve to die. Don't you agree?
Sorry for the delay - notifications must have slipped past me.
There are 2 ways to look at this, for me: absolute vs. relative.
Relative (what they think they're doing impacts what kind of person they are):
If the second man thinks he's doing the right thing, then I think the first man is worse, since he knows about something he could fix and knowingly chooses not to.
Absolute:
I would argue that the 2nd man would have an overall worse impact on society than the 1st man, since he could be growing an organization that has a negative impact on a wider number of people than the ones he's trying to have killed. First man is still a bad person, though.
I could see a few scenarios where the 1st man was one of the targets of the 2nd. That would be quite the twist.