A purely hypothetical question:
If you are the government of a country of 10 people, 1 rich 9 starving. If you don’t do anything, the 9 starving people will die.
Alternatively, you can kill the rich person and distribute the wealth to the 9 other people (so they won’t die). Is that ethical?
(the rich guy defends all his wealth with his life, so to take it, you’ll have to kill him)
Is killing by doing nothing killing, too?
I feel there is something fundamentally wrong about how we classify things as good or evil, but I’m not sure what. Any philosopher here?
It seems like an under-specified optimization problem to me. What exactly are we optimizing for? lowest mortality? fairness? average wealth? total wealth? “happiness”?