What's the point of the question? What would you argue? Yeah, obviously everyone dies, but when is the important part. It's generally agreed that shortening someone's time to live is one of the biggest offenses possible (if not the biggest). How does that question change that notion?
It directly implies that if we prefer dying later to dying sooner (in almost all cases) that older peoples lives would have statistically less value. Which is anathema to many Americans. The only way around it is to say you are indifferent to when death is for people, which is also anathema to a lot of people. It’s a paradox of our ethical system.
If you consider that shortening someone's life is not a continuum but discreetly bad, then there is no paradox. Moreover, I consider that to be the only ethical way to view it. If you take the life expectancy of the victim when judging the killer, you may find yourself giving lighter sentences for those who kill impoverished people, who have a shorter life expectancy, than those who kill rich people.
