King Von vs. Lindsay Clancy

King Von vs. Lindsay Clancy WHO'S MORALLY WORSE, KING VON OR LINDSAY CLANCY? I'VE BEEN SEEING THIS COMPARISON A LOT ON TIKTOK RECENTLY, SO LET'S COMPARE THE BOTH OF THEM ETHICALLY. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY KILLED ANYONE YET, SINCE NEITHER OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY GOTTEN CONVICTED. SO WE'LL JUST SAY WHO THEY'VE ALLEGEDLY KILLED AND TREAT THAT AS FOR THIS HYPOTHETICAL, LINDSAY ALLEGEDLY KILLED HER THREE CHILDREN, ALL UNDER THE AGE OF SIX, WHILE KING VON, ALLEGEDLY KILLED SEVEN PEOPLE, THE YOUNGEST BEING A 17 YEAR OLD GIRL. HER NAME WAS GHAkira BARNES. I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY. WHEN APPROACHING THIS PROBLEM FROM AN OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT, WE FIRST HAVE THE VICTIMS ACTUALLY ARE. LINDSAY KILLED HER PRESUMABLY INNOCENT THREE YOUNG CHILDREN, WHILE KING VON, ASSUMEDLY, KILLED PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY ACTIVE IN GANG CULTURE. EVEN THOUGH KING VON TECHNICALLY DID KILL MORE PEOPLE, IT'S FAIR TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES HERE. I'VE SAID BEFORE IN PREVIOUS VIDEOS THAT DIFFERENT LIVES CARRY DIFFERENT MORAL WEIGHTS. KILLING A CHILD IS LESS MORALLY DEFENSIBLE THAN KILLING A GANGSTER BECAUSE 1. CONSENTED TO THE DANGERS OF GANG LIFE, AND 2. THE CHILD DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A REASONABLE WAY OF PROTECTING ITSELF. SOCIETY IS BUILT ON THE FACT THAT THE VULNERABLE MUST BE PROTECTED. ALTHOUGH GANG VIOLENCE IS TRAGIC, VIOLENCE AGAINST A CHILD TARGETS TRUE INNOCENCE, CAUSING REAL MORAL OUTRAGE. THEREFORE, IN THIS SITUATION, LINDSAY MUST CARRY THE LARGER MORAL PENALTY. WHAT DO YOU THINK? LEAVE YOUR OPINIONS IN COMMENT SECTION BELOW, LIKE THIS VIDEO YOU GIVE ETHICS WITH JASON A FOLLOW.