Hurting Evil for Good Purposes and Error Tolerance of Morality

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Would you kill Hitler if you could? Why or why not?

Now, this is a very simplified version of the question. The true question has to do with how much trust people should have in their own idea that someone is evil and needs to be dealt with by means that would be evil if employed against a good person. Obviously zero is out; we can't have a 100% skeptical position because then, we'd never put anyone in jail. Note that confining someone who has done nothing wrong and depriving them of their freedom is definitely an evil act. Would you say that a totally trusting position is right-out too? I mean, there's probably something wrong with you, if you are told, even by someone you trust, "That guy is evil," and you're immediately willing to off him without investigating the situation.

Personal verification might be a good compromise, and even though nothing quite allows our court system, the fact that they must present overwhelming evidence and absolutely convince a dozen people is at least close. It's the closest that is viable. But personal verification unfortunately fails for the simplified question, if you answered yes. Did anyone seriously think, "Well, I would want to talk to him first, get his side of the story, not just blindly trust what I was told,"? I think not. I think you all just answered yes.

So the question remains, how much trust should there be that we have correct information, before we are willing to commit an act on someone, that would be an evil act if committed against someone who was good?

Arguably doxxing, cancelling, and getting people fired falls in this category. This is only very tangential to the essential problem but it may be considered so permissible only because people consider it a human right to share information, encourage others to boycott a person or product, or demand that a company fires an employee. So, since this is an act which is considered fine no matter what, people are willing to employ it with only a 1% level of trust that the person deserves it, because under that assumption, there's a 1% chance you're doing a good deed and a 99% chance you're doing a neutral deed, which adds up to something everyone should do, even with a very low level of trust.

Bonus question: Does the trust level change when you see someone doing one of these would-be-an-evil-acts, and he claims it is because the person he's hurting did something unacceptable? What trust level do you need to stop him? Is it the same, or different, than the trust level you need to do such an act yourself?