The one that confuses me is the top roght;: that’s Johan liebert from Monster. He’s an irredeemable psychopath who kills his parents as a child, and when his sister shoots him in the head to stop him from killing her, he nearly dies. Then a surgeon saves his life, only to later realize that the life he saved is that of the aforementioned irredeemable psychopath. Many years later, Johan returns and thanks the surgeon for saving his life, crediting his noble act with all of the murders he has been committing and plans to commit. The surgeon has to track him down to terminate the horrid life he granted so many years before (largely to clear his own name, because the psychopath kills someone and the cops think the surgeon did it).

Johan liebert isn’t even really making a philosophical point. He just needs to kill people. The surgeon’s situation (is he culpable for the deaths allowed because he saved a life? Is it morally right to end a life, if by doing so you can preserve many others? Essentially variations on the trolley problem) is the philosophical question, so saying that there is a group of people idolizing Johan Liebert because they misunderstand the meaning is like saying that there are people idolizing the trolley. That’s not really missing the point. Those people would just be dangerously mentally unwell.