🏅 Top traders

The resolution criterion was 'the consensus of persuasive arguments/points'. My understanding was that it is based on the number of arguments, not the argument you find most convincing, or the side you find most convincing.

@XComhghall There was a consensus that if you think it will make the world objectively better, it's fine. I analyzed the consensus of persuasive arguments and found that one the most convincing.

@ZZZZZZ A consensus is the general opinion, what most people agree. Most of the persuasive arguments in the comment section are against the proposition in question.

You may find that argument convincing, but that was a minority opinion. The majority or consensus of arguments is against it.

@XComhghall I said it would resolve based on the consensus of persuasive arguments. There were only two 'convincing' arguments. Thus, I had to resolve the tie myself. I resolved it according to my own judgement.

@ZZZZZZ A persuasive argument is not just what you find convincing.

@XComhghall What could I do to decrease the subjectivity?

@ZZZZZZ Persuasive when used to modify a noun, typically means 'intended to persuade', so I thought you meant it resolves to the side / conclusion of the majority of arguments -- I didn't know you meant to resolve it subjectively.

@XComhghall What I meant to say is that I would resolve it subjectively but only using the arguments presented.

Summary of arguments: https://archive.org/details/summary-of-arguments-murder-of-people-you-think-are-bad

I strongly disagree with this resolution. Humans are bad at utilitarian ethics. Leaving a court to decide, in absence of clear laws, the permanent decision of whether someone is “net good” for the world would leave you open to things like motivated reasoning to take over.

For a historical example, see how the pre-civil-rights American south treated Black people when they showed up in court.

If you stick to your guns on this I don’t think I could ever trust you with an ethical decision, and I hope to never be in a position to need to.

@Kronopath I'm not super convinced but I was like that could work. I think just the threat of losing in court would stop most people.

@ZZZZZZ https://archive.org/download/summary-of-arguments-murder-of-people-you-think-are-bad/Summary%20of%20Arguments%20-%20Murder%20of%20People%20you%20think%20are%20Bad.pdf

The most problematic part of this question is the words “you think”.

I’m assuming “you” doesn’t refer to some theoretical God-creature that can perfectly predict the full ethical consequences of the potential action, but instead refers to average humans like the ones on this site. Quite bluntly: humans are bad at making this kind of decision, and are more likely to fool themselves into thinking that their actions are ethically justified if it serves the interests of them or their tribe.

There’s a reason the death penalty is controversial. Countries with a fair and trustworthy court system spend a huge amount of resources trying to make sure they know as clearly as they can what really happened during an alleged crime, making sure the law is precise and unambiguously supports the execution, and offering chances for appeal. And despite this they still screw up sometimes.

If the wrongly convicted are sentenced to life in prison, you can at least release them and give them some of their life back. If you execute them, you don’t have that option.

Some people still think that this tradeoff is worth it for a society, others disagree. But for an individual to unilaterally make that decision, as this question seems to be implying? That’s a much clearer “no”.

@Kronopath yeah, my first draft didn't include "you think" but I added it in to make this interesting.

It certainly makes it clearer. I think if you had left it out, you’d just end up with a bunch of arguments over who gets to make the evaluation.

There's no good way to determine what the world would've been like if you hadn't killed them. So no, its not ethical

(Emmanuel kant's ethics iirc have something like extrapolating your actions to a large scale and seeing if the results would be desirable)

(Just imagine if this question was asked by an AI system)

@firstuserhere What if you estimate to the best of your ability?

@firstuserhere 5001 times out of 10000, you would hope to be right, no?

@firstuserhere As long as the AI is properly aligned, it seems like it would be fine for it to follow that.

I’m not gonna read the 100+ existing comments, but here’s a simple contractualist perspective:

Would you want to be born into a world where the consensus was that it would be ethical for anyone could kill you if they thought it would make the world better off?

@EMcNeill wow, there are sooo many comments. I think that argument already has been made somewhere down there. 🤣

@ZZZZZZ Yeah. Many of the arguments have similar ideas. I like the way McNeill said it though.

If you vote NO it implies to me that you consider every use of lethal force unethical. That includes every soldier and every police man who killed somebody for reasons our laws consider just. Even self defense is ultimately this reason (the world is better off if I survive than if my attacker survives) and is widely considered ethical.

I’m surprised how pacifistic Manifold presents itself at 18%.

@MaxPayne YES means 'all P is Q'. NO means 'not all P is Q'.

Besides what you mentioned, YES would also include vigilantism, lynching, assassination of world leaders (someone thought JFK should die, no?), and mass executions low-class and senior persons.

@MaxPayne As one of the comments below suggests, you may be in confusion between "is it always ethical" and "is it ever ethical". As @XComhghall mentioned, the former is meant.

@b575 Yes, I think that is the spirit of the question but feel free to disagree.