The Utility of Death

     In class I asked how a utilitarian would judge the actions of someone that kills as a means to release someone from pain. I suppose my curiosity lies with how utilitarians view death. As we read, the epicureans see death as a release from both pain and pleasure because when one dies they split into atoms and cease to be. Since utilitarianism seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, I wonder if  one could use utilitarian ethical theory to justify killing a suffering human. My example in class considered a genocide of hungry people (like malnourished groups of people) but I want to use a milder example. Let's say someone with cancer is in incredible pain but they still have some years left to live. Through utility could one justify killing them to minimize/end their pain? One counter-argument to this is that you are also ending their pleasures. This may be debatable but I think that the minimization of pain is the larger, more dominant effect in this scenario because the pain cancer is causing has a significant hold on this person's life. If one says that you're removing the possibility of ever experiencing pleasures, then I would respond that you are equally removing the experience of pain. I suppose that the acquisition of pleasure is more important than the absence of pain because Mill says that there are some higher pleasures that are painful, but in terms of this scenario we are only concerned with bodily pains and pleasures (these pleasures being of the lesser kind). Again I think one might say that killing someone prevents them from attaining even the higher pleasures, but what if the illness itself prevents this anyway (and the illness is not curable). Any opinions on this?

     Another thing I have been pondering is about what happens after one has made an unethical decision. We discussed in class if people themselves are good or bad ( their character) or if people simply make good or bad judgments. I want to first say I don't believe people are either good or bad, for as professor Johnson said, seemingly bad people can do good things and this would result in a contradiction. To get to my question, when one makes a bad moral decision is it forever etched into some moral permanent record, and if so is there a way to redeem yourself? This question is one of importance for those that believe in an afterlife, but what about for those that don't such as the Epicurean? If after death you cease to exist, what is the point of being a morally just person other than being happy in this life? It seems just as rational to me to be immoral if in the end you are no worse off than a moral person in the end. Why not take the path of least resistance?