[ethbr0]

In goriest form, I think of this as the drone argument.

Is it better to put boots on the ground, some of whom may die and who may cause collateral casualties in executing their mission, or a (hypothetically idealized) drone that kills only the target?

Still haven't decided if I have, or there even exists, a good answer to that.

[oauea]

The answer is yes. Murdering other humans who have no way to see it coming and no way to defend themselves is deeply evil. Especially when you factor in the murder of innocents (also referred to as collateral damage), and the facts that mistakes happen.

[ethbr0]

But people are people. They get nervous/scared in situations. Maybe the boots on the ground snap and murder a bunch of civilians they thought were threatening.

A perfect drone wouldn't do that.

But on the other hand, a perfect drone has no cost of use, other than monetary. Which seems far too low a bar to set for the seriousness of taking a life.

[int_19h]

What if the "other human" is in the process of murdering people at that very point?

[oauea]

Send police to deal with the situation. If that is not possible for some reason, then that is the problem that needs fixing. You don't need murderbots.

[int_19h]

It's never impossible, but in e.g. a hostage situation, this may result in a lot more innocent deaths.

I suppose a better question would be, why do you feel that in this particular situation - a murderer on rampage - you still feel that it is "deeply evil" to kill them in such a way that they "have no way to see it coming", to the point where you'd prefer other people to risk lives to do it in some other way?