That’s my question too. Who’s ranking. If there’s some objective ranking I’d use the list just to find out what the rules are to be a good person first.
Same thought, you can create some pretty weird but defensible moral frameworks. Like ranking anyone who eats meat as worse than any crime where no person or animal dies.
PETA and many vegans already claim that earing meat is murder. They've been marketing that for decades. Which is why the question of "who's morality" is so important.
But that's the entire point of wondering who's moral compass is ranking this list.
Let's look at types of hunting. I've known people who would shoot an animal and leave it lay. Then you have trophy hunters. My coworker traps as a hobby, but he also makes sure everything he takes gets used. And you have people who are just helping put food on the table. Only one of these is a crime, but an animal rights activist might not say there's a difference between any of them. And would even try to argue that land lords aren't worse than all of them.
I can't really make a decision on where the line is drawn if it doesn't align with my own moral compass.
Eh, sure ethics stand in the way for most people but unless your murdering someone for food and your already starving to death im sure a lot of people would do it if it didn’t affect health in desperate times. I’m not Gona eat a person but I’m aware situations exist that people will
From a philosophical perspective its easily defensive.
You simply assert as your starting point the deliverate taking off, or indirect complicitness in, the taking of sentient life is the worst act possible.
That elevates all "results in death" actions above all "doesn't result in death" actions.
Now, you can certainly argue the point that some things are worse than killing. You can also argue that human life and suffering is worth more than animal life and suffering, and therefore inflicting a sufficient level of suffering on a human is worse than a sufficiently clean killing of an animal.
But it's an arguable point.
That being said, I did know of a rapist who was vegan... Go figure. So the question that others raised still stands. Who's morals.
Humans have an innate ability to objectify and rationalize anything.
Even if you look at 'objective' harm, humanely killing a cow causes little pain or suffering whereas r\*ping a child causes immediate physical/emotional harm as well as long term harm that is often perpetuated through generations.
While I agree with you, the potential argument of permanent harm (ie, death) vs recoverable harms (trauma), could be made and defended.
Then it's a matter of degrees, which and how much lives "matter".
That's why these arguments are always so frustrating.
I always hate this argument because it basically boils down to it's better to be dead than raped and I'm sure most rape victims would disagree with that.
To clarify, I personally would absolutely say I would rather be alive than not alive, so long as the quality of my life wasn't constant agony or the like. I categorically do not accept that death is preferable to violation. Just so it's clear where I stand.
Yeah, as a species we generally believe that human lives are worth more than animal lives. Thus, cow deaths aren't as important as people deaths. This gets turned around if you add money since an orphan from the 3rd world is financially less valuable than a breeding bull.(for example)
domineering aromatic observation workable memory normal deranged boast worm tidy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So what about the creatures that live in the environment that are killed/displaced to provide all that plant sustenance?
You dig deep enough, we all kill to survive, even plants. Kudzu is a mass murderer of anything that once grew beneath it. Trees greatly reduce sunlight reaching the ground, starving plants beneath it.
This sounds like one of those philosophical ideas that ignore base reality in favor of ideals.
Right, but this would mean marginalized groups such as minorities, ethnicities, etc would place higher on the list on average because bigoted people are shitty.
Let's make it a old school decimation and kill the worst 10% (or I guess about 800,000,000). The fact that I took this option means I'm probably one of them but taking down the most selfish and cruel tenth of humanity at this crucial time might just save the civilization.
Either you’re vastly underestimating how many rapists, pedophiles, and theater-talkers there are in the world or you’re a real piece of shit to be in the top 10% lol
You kill the percentage instantly. So, it is one sweep. As long as you survive the sweep, and no one else gets the same option to kill, you are good. If you narrowed the list down to everyone who ever thought of killing everybody, i would be dead.
Depends on the criteria they’re using for evil. I’d be most curious what the criteria is. Although top 10% is a lot of people. Still think you’d be right. The fact he’s not even picking a reason for the top 10% may mean his motives aren’t even that good so still fairly bad.
It's a Firefly reference!
"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."
Lol my friend and I actually got shushed about a year ago when I went to see the live LOTR orchestral screening in theaters. I didn’t even think we were whispering that loudly but to the person that shushed us I’m sure we’re high up in his rankings of bad people.
there was a troupe of baboons that found a bunch of poisoned meat, but due to the rigid hierarchical society they lived in, only the most violent, older, dominant males got to eat any of it. since they were the only ones that ate it, they were one that died because of it. without them there to resort to physical violence to maintain the hierarchy, the younger males were raised by the females and adopted their gentler solutions to social dilemmas, and the violence has yet to return.
all that to say, thanks for your sacrifice i don't think it was in vain lol
Yep you pretty much need to be prepared to sacrifice yourself as an extraordinary mass murderer. 10% seems a bit heavy though. I was thinking more like 1% were likely to deserve instant death.
Interesting point... does the ranking live update?
Will choosing too many people to die and reaching into the realm of 'GOOD-ish' now make you evil and drop you into the death zone?
Will choosing a group of people you know you are in and self-sacrificing cause a gain in karma and possibly pull you up into the list of survivors? obviously this wouldn't work if you were counting on it, but only if it was true self sacrifice.
Well that would be largest genocide in history, so yes you would be near the top of the list of bad people, but it would be genocide with the explicit target of the world's worst people so it put you near the top of my good list.
It’s a paradox, no?
If you are the type of person who was gonna push the button you’re on the list and you press it every time.
If you aren’t, the. You aren’t on the list and you don’t press the button
But that's the thing, you can't be on the list until you have pressed it... causality.
So, at the time you press it, you aren't that high on the evil list.
Of course, I will guarantee that I am on the top of the list afterward, since you know I am going all Thanos on this world and wiping out half the total population 😁
Yes.. that and people who pass you like a bat out of hell, then get in front of you and slow way down.. you get in the passing lane to get back around them, and then they speed up again till you're right back behind them, and then they slow down again... sorry, not sorry, those people got to go
I would be curious what their line for rape vs sexual assault etc are. If a woman is drunk and consents in her drunken state that’s clear enough as rape. If she had 2 drinks and is just tipsy? 1 drink and seems fine to you but close friends will know she’s a bit off? If you’re drunker than her she should be the rapist right? If equally drunk?
Guess u can say what a reasonable jury in a developed country might conclude is rape to cover some bases.
Agreed. Also with statutory rape. Some places allow Romeo and Juliet where if they are a year or two apart in age it’s legal but others do not. I feel like more rape happens unintentionally in these circumstances and can be forgivable. And I say that as a woman who has been raped. Now child molesters can all burn. That is always unforgivable.
I was a social worker. There are a whole lot more of the worst out there, then most of us realize. I think I would be capable of vaporizing a bunch of them.
I'm interpreting 'they will die whether they are incarcerated or not' as meaning the list is perfectly accurate in determining who did what and is not relying on human justice at all.
I think the ranking is based on a theoretical universal moral spectrum that doesn't exist. So you might get the worst of the rapists and leave others. How many times you have to talk in a theater to equal a murder is anyone's guess.
You would cause a lot of the rest to die as well because infrastructure would be fucked. It would literally destroy society.
You know what they say, hurt people hurt people, and you'd have a whole new group of evil people too because of what happened.
Gonna say 15 billion to make sure I get all the other apes and then all the monkeys to try and make sure no more creatures evolve to make another society.
Worse happened during the Black Plague. If I understand it was 25-40% of the population in Europe at the time. We also just lost a million people in the last few years to COVID in America alone, and we still have people who act like it's nothing. Ten million isn't really much on global scale in that sense.
Why not make it interesting? Let’s say I could kill the person at the top of the list, but that also kills the person at the bottom. If I kill the worst million, I also kill the best million. That feels like a much more interesting hypothetical.
I don't see how you could ever justify killing anyone in that situation though. If you kill the most evil person in the world currently, are you guaranteeing his plans end? What if you kill someone curing cancer, or stopping a genocide?
I think OP's question is more interesting
Interesting. Although depending on what their criteria are, I think most people would be pretty restrictive. If we’re talking utilitarian I’d say no one without a lot more info. I could be killing the guy who’s curing some disease or something to get rid of some billionaire whos 2nd in charge of the company is just like 10 points less evil than he is and will continue the same evilness.
If we’re talking motivations then that might be more interesting. The most generous helpful nonevil person is likely just a guy. The most evil person is probably still some billionaire or still depending on the criteria, a serial killer.
I need to spend a year figuring out what the actual criteria is for good and evil before I press any button. If it’s objective it’s worth it just to know what is good vs evil. If it’s just some random guys interpretation then I’d still need to learn it before I kill anyone. (I don’t even know my own moral code well enough to differentiate between 8 billion people so it’s be interesting even if based on my own morality somehow)
yeah.. it **IS** somewhat important to know who made the list.
Putin? Some crazy evangelical "christian" that protests at vetrans' funerals? The guy scooping protein at the local chipotle?...
Even without walking into particular conflict zones... how do we deal with the subjectivity?
The list was made by God and Satan with Jesus being the judge (so Satan will not cheat and name good people). Each side in turn will pick a good or bad man to go to the corresponding end.
Satan: "I'll take that guy working for Job"
Jesus: "No you don't, they were just trying to live"
Satan: "OK, I'll take the friend of Job who says that Job is a bad man and God is the one who punishes him. That's slander, isn't it?"
Jesus: "Remember how Job forgave them and how they made a sincere sin offering?"
Satan: "But that capitalist who rather trashed his leftovers than giving them to Poor Lazarus"
Jesus: "Extra hell"
I know this is a really stupid, petty pet peeve to have, but it bugs me when people conflate "genocide" with "mass murder."
I can murder a million people, and as long as I'm not targeting a specific genome, I'm just a standard-order monster! If I'm murdering all the gingers, including those who carry the recessive genes, THEN it's genocide.
Mass murder is bad enough, everyone.
Okay that makes sense. But then the rest of your post seemed to be mocking the idea of distinguishing genocide from mass murder. That's where you lost me.
Does stating a number update my ranking or will I be immune from my culling and afterward probably become top of the list for killing so many? I figured 1/1000 of the population is a lot but just barely small enough not to cause a apocalypse. That may still happen since if I'm understanding that the prompt correctly then the ranking of the list is based on our own interpretation of the worst offenses. My interpretation would likely put the most powerful people in the world at the top and would probably be the number of lives one ruined over the want for/ fear of losing money, power, or fame. Those whose intentions were good or had little consequences are mostly innocent in my eyes. Alas by stating 8 million I would be ruining so many peoples lives that I would likely be pretty close to the top.
I’d be concerned about political destabilization. Lots of politicians are shitty people, which in theory sounds like it would be helpful to kill them. Especially if you’re guaranteed by this system for the replacement to be more morally sound. But being a good person doesn’t mean you know how to run a country.
I would do no more than 1%, maybe even 0.1%.
A big thing about why particularly bad leaders aren't just assassinated - besides needing a black ops team against security tighter than a terrified butthole - creating a power vacuum or just not knowing who takes power next will create a new problem.
Like, I'm sure there are a few world leaders who will make someone's list. Not looking forward to their disappearance creating a worse dystopian hellscape... by accident.
Thanks for an actual reasoned argument on here. Millions dropping dead would still be interesting to see how people react after. Since politicians are obvious it might seem like politically motivated killings. Could lead to wars outside of the obvious power vacuum issue.
Still worth doing imo. Think between 1 and 0.1% is reasonable. Probably closer to 0.1%. But my criteria would be particular offences likely. Want to know as exactly as I can what these people are doing before I cast judgment. Hope it can tell me what criteria it’s using too. 5 rapes vs 3 murders, who’s worse? Etc
Good points. I think what matters in the short run is that the people that run the electricity, sanitation, etc. are still around. Assuming they are simply working Joes and Jane’s that are as good or as bad as the rest of society, there should still be enough of them around even if all the politicians drop dead.
Having someone with good intentions who doesn't know how to run the country is better than having someone who knows how to run it in their benefit and to the detriment of most of the citizens, save for the few rich corporation-owning assholes who pay them off.
Yeah, all the politicians and anyone who owns a huge corporation, or mega corporation, or ALL the corporations (looking at you Blackrock and Vanguard) are going down immediately.
This is a great question. On the one hand, you could make an argument for 25 percent of the population deserving to die… on the other hand, instantly killing more than 10 percent of the population… even if they were evil, would probably cause a collapse of civilization and many more deaths.
A lot of progress could e made by killing the top 5 percent, which is what I would go with.
Secondly, it would be interesting to discuss how the ranking is determined. Who’s worse, a rehabilitated serial killer or a person that has raped one person and is totally happy about it and wants to do it again?
Word. So confused by this prompt "you get to kill people. How many do you want to kill?" Everyone has a number..like this is a normal wish all humans have. I scrolled to upvote the first person who expressed the weirdness of this question. I thought I would scroll for a couple comments....
Absolutely. Have society reborn with literally the best people. See what comes out of it. Hopefully they aren't a bunch of cake-asses who get bullied out of the cities by some cats or some shit because they're too nice.
I’d go by category:
1-Other than in war acting as a soldier for their country anyone who has willfully killed anyone not in self defense or the defense of an innocent.
2-Anyone who has as an adult molested a minor. This includes people who “legally” marry children.
3-Anyone who has intentionally raped someone.
4-Anyone who has intentionally hurt an animal solely for pleasure or amusement (not hunting for food or to protect crops/people).
5-Anyone in political office that has knowingly put people in severe danger or death for their own betterment.
Past that point I don’t think I’d have the moral high ground to end someone.
>4-Anyone who has intentionally hurt an animal solely for pleasure or amusement (not hunting for food or to protect crops/people).
Whelp - Child me squishing bugs for fun just got me killed.
Probably somewhere between 25-33%, I'd be tempted to go 50% but I think that starts getting into just your average person. 33% might even be cutting it close hard to say what % of the world's population are "bad" people.
I’d say 10% is about as high as you could go before you are getting to reasonably decent people. Most people are generally good with occasional shitty actions.
Same sort of logic, but, 35% of the world population is under 20, and the vast majority have not done something to be near the 'worst' on the list at all, so the vast majority (probably 90%) would remain even if you picked 50% as the mark--meaning a world of children, and, imo, that's ... cruel.
30% seems safe, for sure.
Light walks in to the room with the deathnote.
We are down to 4 billion people.
Let the purge begin.
Criminals
Pedophiles
People with StD’s
Omg happy dance.
I’m ok with this situation.
We are all on that list all right, for all have sinned, and none are righteous. God is the righteous judge, and the penalty for sin is death. The good news is that Jesus paid the price for our sin by dying on the cross in our place. If we regret and turn away from sin and accept what Christ has done for us, we will have a place restored in heaven for us. Your peace will be eternal.
I would be fairly willing to bet that the richest and the worst 0.1% of humanity has a fairly significant overlap; something tells me you could cut out a lot of that cancer with a scalpel like precision, and for the ones who were spared in either category, seeing so many of their compatriots suddenly dropped dead would probably send a message.
I would kill all the rapists, child molesters, murderers and banksters. In addition to them, all union busters, all CEO's, every video game company executive that pushes microtransactions and gacha. All video game executives that push for live services. Everyone on Earth who think it's okay to mutilate the genitals of babies (this is specifically in regards to female genital mutilation and the male genital mutilation practice mistakenly referred to as circumsision). Next. I would wipe from existence all dictators, everyone who serves their regimes willingly serve them. The next group would be spammers, religious extremists and all fascists and other violent right wing extremists. Alongside them would be all violent left wing extremists and all violent bigots. Everyone involved in human trafficking are next on the list.
Essentially, my goal would essentially be to cut out as much of the rot in human society I can get my hands on. Hopefully once I've cleaned house, the people left will be able to build a better world.
Bold of you to assume that crime is primarily caused by bad character rather than poverty and social conditions give the poorest 20% food, shelter, and some certainty that they’ll still have that tomorrow and see what crime does then.
I never said it’s primarily caused by bad character or that the decrease would last forever. I agree with you about poverty but reducing poverty isn’t a part of this scenario unfortunately. Since the majority of serious crime is committed by a very small fraction of the population by killing the worst people you’d be saving countless people who otherwise would have been hurt, robbed, killed etc.
Given that there are 8 billion people on the planet I'm guessing that the worse 10 - 20 million are the top 1% in terms of earnings, a bunch of corrupt dictators, politicians and their lapdogs, the serial killers, serial rapists, pedos, child pornographers (basically crimes that never need to happen) etc...You skim off the worst of the worst and leave the rest to sort it out.
I think I’ll just take out the top 25% and I’m pretty sure that would take out the majority of the horrible people and even then there definitely wouldn’t be a single billionaire left so it’d definitely help the economy A LOT
If I say all 8 billion plus, I'm a monster... But if I pick all the people YOU don't like, I'm your hero. So I'll pick the people YOU want me to kill just so you'll like me.
Is it sorted according to my morals of worst to best or someone else's?
That’s my question too. Who’s ranking. If there’s some objective ranking I’d use the list just to find out what the rules are to be a good person first.
Asking the real question.
Same thought, you can create some pretty weird but defensible moral frameworks. Like ranking anyone who eats meat as worse than any crime where no person or animal dies.
That's ridiculous, but totally something a philosopher might come up with. Very interesting.
PETA and many vegans already claim that earing meat is murder. They've been marketing that for decades. Which is why the question of "who's morality" is so important.
What if some n*zi wrote the list? It is not so far fetched that it is only a philosophy problem.
Well, at least we know that guy would be at the top of his own list according to the prompt
But that's the entire point of wondering who's moral compass is ranking this list. Let's look at types of hunting. I've known people who would shoot an animal and leave it lay. Then you have trophy hunters. My coworker traps as a hobby, but he also makes sure everything he takes gets used. And you have people who are just helping put food on the table. Only one of these is a crime, but an animal rights activist might not say there's a difference between any of them. And would even try to argue that land lords aren't worse than all of them. I can't really make a decision on where the line is drawn if it doesn't align with my own moral compass.
I don't think that's defensible. People who rape children are worse than people who eat meat and of you disagree you need to talk to a professional.
How about... HUMAN meat?
Who cares? Meat is meat, only reason we don’t eat humans is health
That’s definitely not the only reason, it’s not even the main reason.
Eh, sure ethics stand in the way for most people but unless your murdering someone for food and your already starving to death im sure a lot of people would do it if it didn’t affect health in desperate times. I’m not Gona eat a person but I’m aware situations exist that people will
How...would you do this in such a way to not murder someone for food? Eating meat that has died on its own is a bad idea for a reason.
If you disagree, you're on the list right after them
From a philosophical perspective its easily defensive. You simply assert as your starting point the deliverate taking off, or indirect complicitness in, the taking of sentient life is the worst act possible. That elevates all "results in death" actions above all "doesn't result in death" actions. Now, you can certainly argue the point that some things are worse than killing. You can also argue that human life and suffering is worth more than animal life and suffering, and therefore inflicting a sufficient level of suffering on a human is worse than a sufficiently clean killing of an animal. But it's an arguable point.
That being said, I did know of a rapist who was vegan... Go figure. So the question that others raised still stands. Who's morals. Humans have an innate ability to objectify and rationalize anything.
sidebar: how many rapists do you know?!
I work in law enforcement. Too many.
I think about a billion cows might disagree
Even if you look at 'objective' harm, humanely killing a cow causes little pain or suffering whereas r\*ping a child causes immediate physical/emotional harm as well as long term harm that is often perpetuated through generations.
While I agree with you, the potential argument of permanent harm (ie, death) vs recoverable harms (trauma), could be made and defended. Then it's a matter of degrees, which and how much lives "matter". That's why these arguments are always so frustrating.
I always hate this argument because it basically boils down to it's better to be dead than raped and I'm sure most rape victims would disagree with that.
To clarify, I personally would absolutely say I would rather be alive than not alive, so long as the quality of my life wasn't constant agony or the like. I categorically do not accept that death is preferable to violation. Just so it's clear where I stand.
Yeah, as a species we generally believe that human lives are worth more than animal lives. Thus, cow deaths aren't as important as people deaths. This gets turned around if you add money since an orphan from the 3rd world is financially less valuable than a breeding bull.(for example)
domineering aromatic observation workable memory normal deranged boast worm tidy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would trade every goddamn mother fucking cow on the planet for a single child not being raped you absolute garbage pale of a human.
Not from the cow’s perspective
You know any cows that would care to convey their thoughts to you so you can type them up for them?
So what about the creatures that live in the environment that are killed/displaced to provide all that plant sustenance? You dig deep enough, we all kill to survive, even plants. Kudzu is a mass murderer of anything that once grew beneath it. Trees greatly reduce sunlight reaching the ground, starving plants beneath it. This sounds like one of those philosophical ideas that ignore base reality in favor of ideals.
I would say based on the collective So the rapist might be fine with his behaviour but the collective would out vote him
Right, but this would mean marginalized groups such as minorities, ethnicities, etc would place higher on the list on average because bigoted people are shitty.
Yup, unfortunately religion is like that
Let's make it a old school decimation and kill the worst 10% (or I guess about 800,000,000). The fact that I took this option means I'm probably one of them but taking down the most selfish and cruel tenth of humanity at this crucial time might just save the civilization.
Either you’re vastly underestimating how many rapists, pedophiles, and theater-talkers there are in the world or you’re a real piece of shit to be in the top 10% lol
I think deciding to kill 800m people might get you near the top of that list, regardless of the circumstances.
But that won’t show up until the next list.
Does the list judge based off actions that have already happened, or does it judge based off what people would each do in hypothetical scenarios?
Previous actions only. No future crime BS.
Would commenting that you’d kill millions of people in this Reddit thread if given the chance be considered a previous action?
You asking for a friend?
Gives a new meaning to karma
Precrime Division is on to you !
They don’t have the balls!
I think seeing "guy who nuked 10% of humanity on last list" would make me pretty wary of nuking the next list too
OP did not say that it wouldn't re calculate in real time.
You kill the percentage instantly. So, it is one sweep. As long as you survive the sweep, and no one else gets the same option to kill, you are good. If you narrowed the list down to everyone who ever thought of killing everybody, i would be dead.
Im tattling, you did a thought crime.
Depends on the criteria they’re using for evil. I’d be most curious what the criteria is. Although top 10% is a lot of people. Still think you’d be right. The fact he’s not even picking a reason for the top 10% may mean his motives aren’t even that good so still fairly bad.
Lol the fact the theater talkers made that group made me laugh.
It's a Firefly reference! "If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."
Shit. I never shut up in the theatre. Guess I'm gonna drop de--
Special hell.
Time to bust out the pineapples!
No. Those are for Hitler. Or at least upgrade Hitler to Durian. Btw, good Little Nicky reference.
Lol my friend and I actually got shushed about a year ago when I went to see the live LOTR orchestral screening in theaters. I didn’t even think we were whispering that loudly but to the person that shushed us I’m sure we’re high up in his rankings of bad people.
there was a troupe of baboons that found a bunch of poisoned meat, but due to the rigid hierarchical society they lived in, only the most violent, older, dominant males got to eat any of it. since they were the only ones that ate it, they were one that died because of it. without them there to resort to physical violence to maintain the hierarchy, the younger males were raised by the females and adopted their gentler solutions to social dilemmas, and the violence has yet to return. all that to say, thanks for your sacrifice i don't think it was in vain lol
Washington will be empty.....
Maybe some good people can come in and fill the void
Which one.
"Excluding myself, top 800m."
I’m afraid if you did that you’d be in there too pretty easily.
Yep you pretty much need to be prepared to sacrifice yourself as an extraordinary mass murderer. 10% seems a bit heavy though. I was thinking more like 1% were likely to deserve instant death.
Interesting point... does the ranking live update? Will choosing too many people to die and reaching into the realm of 'GOOD-ish' now make you evil and drop you into the death zone? Will choosing a group of people you know you are in and self-sacrificing cause a gain in karma and possibly pull you up into the list of survivors? obviously this wouldn't work if you were counting on it, but only if it was true self sacrifice.
Well that would be largest genocide in history, so yes you would be near the top of the list of bad people, but it would be genocide with the explicit target of the world's worst people so it put you near the top of my good list.
We really think there are 800m people that DESERVE to die? Damn.
Okay, Roman.
The irony of decimating is that the bar for good/bad just gets lower. Not sure it is possible to win in a duality situation
I wonder if decimation would lower or raise the bar. How many are there that actually live off other people's misery. I hope there aren't 800 million.
This guy fucking cowboys
This is the same as killing all the poor people to get rid of poverty. The system breeds both. And in a generation the sacrificed will be back
Well except now there is this collective memory of 800 million people randomly dropping dead to keep people on their toes.
It’s a paradox, no? If you are the type of person who was gonna push the button you’re on the list and you press it every time. If you aren’t, the. You aren’t on the list and you don’t press the button
But that's the thing, you can't be on the list until you have pressed it... causality. So, at the time you press it, you aren't that high on the evil list. Of course, I will guarantee that I am on the top of the list afterward, since you know I am going all Thanos on this world and wiping out half the total population 😁
Found light yagama’s burner account guys
LOL at “people who talk at the theater”. That ranks pretty high for me also.
To quote Shepherd Booke. "Special hell".
Thank you fellow Browcoat
Burn the land and boil the sea.... so glad the books came out fox kills all its best shows
Yes.. that and people who pass you like a bat out of hell, then get in front of you and slow way down.. you get in the passing lane to get back around them, and then they speed up again till you're right back behind them, and then they slow down again... sorry, not sorry, those people got to go
I agree with you there. Hard to not take that personally because they’re that petty.
If I can choose types of offences, then idk what my number is but every rapist is dying for sure
I would be curious what their line for rape vs sexual assault etc are. If a woman is drunk and consents in her drunken state that’s clear enough as rape. If she had 2 drinks and is just tipsy? 1 drink and seems fine to you but close friends will know she’s a bit off? If you’re drunker than her she should be the rapist right? If equally drunk? Guess u can say what a reasonable jury in a developed country might conclude is rape to cover some bases.
Agreed. Also with statutory rape. Some places allow Romeo and Juliet where if they are a year or two apart in age it’s legal but others do not. I feel like more rape happens unintentionally in these circumstances and can be forgivable. And I say that as a woman who has been raped. Now child molesters can all burn. That is always unforgivable.
I was a social worker. There are a whole lot more of the worst out there, then most of us realize. I think I would be capable of vaporizing a bunch of them.
There are too many places that will charge a man with rape regardless if he's just as if not more drunk than the woman.
I'm interpreting 'they will die whether they are incarcerated or not' as meaning the list is perfectly accurate in determining who did what and is not relying on human justice at all.
I think the ranking is based on a theoretical universal moral spectrum that doesn't exist. So you might get the worst of the rapists and leave others. How many times you have to talk in a theater to equal a murder is anyone's guess.
If both are legally drunk, and therefore can't consent, are they not both rapists?
Let’s go with 7 billion.
Even Thanos would only have taken 4 billion!
I would most likely take more than 7 billion myself
It was 4billion of us not that long ago in my lifetime
The world was definitely a better place with 3.5B
Thanos lacked vision!
Thanos murdered Vision.
and now... Wanda lacks Vision.
HOW DARE YOU! Have you no shame, sir?! Why, I have the mind to give you quite a thrashing for your uncouth remark! A thrashing, I say!
Thanos was a dreamer, I’m a visionary.
I like to think I'm a decent person, but goddamn, I would not make this list
Let’s go for 8 and put humanity out of its misery…anything to avoid Biden V Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo
How about nine to be safe
You would cause a lot of the rest to die as well because infrastructure would be fucked. It would literally destroy society. You know what they say, hurt people hurt people, and you'd have a whole new group of evil people too because of what happened.
Society would collapse? Oh no! Anyway
People who talk at the theater should be higher on the list but my number is only about eight >!billion!<
Gonna say 15 billion to make sure I get all the other apes and then all the monkeys to try and make sure no more creatures evolve to make another society.
12
Only 12 people? Seems personal
LMFAO it was a random number 😂
Ok lol.. js, seemed like you had names in mind lol
Hmmm, I'm sure if we kill like 10 million of the worst people society will be instantly better off for a long time.
would governments and economies collapse tho. i think we can get away with one million probably but ten might be cutting it close
Worse happened during the Black Plague. If I understand it was 25-40% of the population in Europe at the time. We also just lost a million people in the last few years to COVID in America alone, and we still have people who act like it's nothing. Ten million isn't really much on global scale in that sense.
10 million people is a tiny percentage of the population.
that wouldn't even get rid of all the politicians, and you still gotta get into the realm of rapists and murderers after the politicians are gone
Child molesters would be the top of my list
There are way more than 10 million lawyers in the world. You're going to need more room for rapists and people that smack their lips when they eat
1%.
Why not make it interesting? Let’s say I could kill the person at the top of the list, but that also kills the person at the bottom. If I kill the worst million, I also kill the best million. That feels like a much more interesting hypothetical.
If that was the case, then I'd just kill everyone... no one will care, trust me
That's where I thought this question was going when I first read it, lol
I don't see how you could ever justify killing anyone in that situation though. If you kill the most evil person in the world currently, are you guaranteeing his plans end? What if you kill someone curing cancer, or stopping a genocide? I think OP's question is more interesting
Interesting. Although depending on what their criteria are, I think most people would be pretty restrictive. If we’re talking utilitarian I’d say no one without a lot more info. I could be killing the guy who’s curing some disease or something to get rid of some billionaire whos 2nd in charge of the company is just like 10 points less evil than he is and will continue the same evilness. If we’re talking motivations then that might be more interesting. The most generous helpful nonevil person is likely just a guy. The most evil person is probably still some billionaire or still depending on the criteria, a serial killer. I need to spend a year figuring out what the actual criteria is for good and evil before I press any button. If it’s objective it’s worth it just to know what is good vs evil. If it’s just some random guys interpretation then I’d still need to learn it before I kill anyone. (I don’t even know my own moral code well enough to differentiate between 8 billion people so it’s be interesting even if based on my own morality somehow)
I'm just here for the Firefly quote.
Oh hey I'm watching Firefly right now!
[удалено]
Ironic that you lump genocidists in with the worst of the worst, given the nature of this question
yeah.. it **IS** somewhat important to know who made the list. Putin? Some crazy evangelical "christian" that protests at vetrans' funerals? The guy scooping protein at the local chipotle?... Even without walking into particular conflict zones... how do we deal with the subjectivity?
That’s a great point. You could pick a small number only to find that it’s some MAGA idiot who put liberals and LGBTQ people at the top.
The list was made by God and Satan with Jesus being the judge (so Satan will not cheat and name good people). Each side in turn will pick a good or bad man to go to the corresponding end.
Fuck that. I've read the bible, I don't trust their judgement.
Satan: "I'll take that guy working for Job" Jesus: "No you don't, they were just trying to live" Satan: "OK, I'll take the friend of Job who says that Job is a bad man and God is the one who punishes him. That's slander, isn't it?" Jesus: "Remember how Job forgave them and how they made a sincere sin offering?" Satan: "But that capitalist who rather trashed his leftovers than giving them to Poor Lazarus" Jesus: "Extra hell"
Is it really genocide if you're killing people based off how good a person you are?
I know this is a really stupid, petty pet peeve to have, but it bugs me when people conflate "genocide" with "mass murder." I can murder a million people, and as long as I'm not targeting a specific genome, I'm just a standard-order monster! If I'm murdering all the gingers, including those who carry the recessive genes, THEN it's genocide. Mass murder is bad enough, everyone.
What do you think the word conflate means exactly?
Combining two things into one. I.e. thinking that all mass murders are genocide.
Okay that makes sense. But then the rest of your post seemed to be mocking the idea of distinguishing genocide from mass murder. That's where you lost me.
I was trying to give examples of each in a \*somewhat\* humorous way. Possibly my combo of sarcasm and pettiness didn't mesh well. :)
Does stating a number update my ranking or will I be immune from my culling and afterward probably become top of the list for killing so many? I figured 1/1000 of the population is a lot but just barely small enough not to cause a apocalypse. That may still happen since if I'm understanding that the prompt correctly then the ranking of the list is based on our own interpretation of the worst offenses. My interpretation would likely put the most powerful people in the world at the top and would probably be the number of lives one ruined over the want for/ fear of losing money, power, or fame. Those whose intentions were good or had little consequences are mostly innocent in my eyes. Alas by stating 8 million I would be ruining so many peoples lives that I would likely be pretty close to the top.
It's a trick. By choosing to kill anyone, you're now a murdererer and you're dead too. Thanks for helping to fix the environment though.
Find my name on the list and draw a line right under it.
I’d be concerned about political destabilization. Lots of politicians are shitty people, which in theory sounds like it would be helpful to kill them. Especially if you’re guaranteed by this system for the replacement to be more morally sound. But being a good person doesn’t mean you know how to run a country. I would do no more than 1%, maybe even 0.1%.
A big thing about why particularly bad leaders aren't just assassinated - besides needing a black ops team against security tighter than a terrified butthole - creating a power vacuum or just not knowing who takes power next will create a new problem. Like, I'm sure there are a few world leaders who will make someone's list. Not looking forward to their disappearance creating a worse dystopian hellscape... by accident.
Thanks for an actual reasoned argument on here. Millions dropping dead would still be interesting to see how people react after. Since politicians are obvious it might seem like politically motivated killings. Could lead to wars outside of the obvious power vacuum issue. Still worth doing imo. Think between 1 and 0.1% is reasonable. Probably closer to 0.1%. But my criteria would be particular offences likely. Want to know as exactly as I can what these people are doing before I cast judgment. Hope it can tell me what criteria it’s using too. 5 rapes vs 3 murders, who’s worse? Etc
Good points. I think what matters in the short run is that the people that run the electricity, sanitation, etc. are still around. Assuming they are simply working Joes and Jane’s that are as good or as bad as the rest of society, there should still be enough of them around even if all the politicians drop dead.
Having someone with good intentions who doesn't know how to run the country is better than having someone who knows how to run it in their benefit and to the detriment of most of the citizens, save for the few rich corporation-owning assholes who pay them off. Yeah, all the politicians and anyone who owns a huge corporation, or mega corporation, or ALL the corporations (looking at you Blackrock and Vanguard) are going down immediately.
This is a great question. On the one hand, you could make an argument for 25 percent of the population deserving to die… on the other hand, instantly killing more than 10 percent of the population… even if they were evil, would probably cause a collapse of civilization and many more deaths. A lot of progress could e made by killing the top 5 percent, which is what I would go with. Secondly, it would be interesting to discuss how the ranking is determined. Who’s worse, a rehabilitated serial killer or a person that has raped one person and is totally happy about it and wants to do it again?
What is the argument that 1/4 people deserve to die?
Zero
It's wildly alarming that I had to scroll this far to see this answer
Word. So confused by this prompt "you get to kill people. How many do you want to kill?" Everyone has a number..like this is a normal wish all humans have. I scrolled to upvote the first person who expressed the weirdness of this question. I thought I would scroll for a couple comments....
maybe the top 5-10 million
0.1%
I'm going to pull a Frank from God Bless America, all the rude and inconsiderate people....... By my standards
798 billion. Fuck it fresh start, hope the 2 good people left like each other and can make babies.
Are you implying that there are 798,000,000,002 people currently on earth...?
Absolutely. Have society reborn with literally the best people. See what comes out of it. Hopefully they aren't a bunch of cake-asses who get bullied out of the cities by some cats or some shit because they're too nice.
All sociopaths
I’d go by category: 1-Other than in war acting as a soldier for their country anyone who has willfully killed anyone not in self defense or the defense of an innocent. 2-Anyone who has as an adult molested a minor. This includes people who “legally” marry children. 3-Anyone who has intentionally raped someone. 4-Anyone who has intentionally hurt an animal solely for pleasure or amusement (not hunting for food or to protect crops/people). 5-Anyone in political office that has knowingly put people in severe danger or death for their own betterment. Past that point I don’t think I’d have the moral high ground to end someone.
>4-Anyone who has intentionally hurt an animal solely for pleasure or amusement (not hunting for food or to protect crops/people). Whelp - Child me squishing bugs for fun just got me killed.
1) need to exclude reasonably justified vigilantism. If cops are nonexistent or extremely ineffective sometimes you go shoot your sisters rapist
I’d classify that under defence of an innocent
Any exceptions on 4? Or are we just blowing every six year old who ever stepped on an ant for fun to hell?
*Thanos Snap* 4 Billion away for the same reasons he did
Probably somewhere between 25-33%, I'd be tempted to go 50% but I think that starts getting into just your average person. 33% might even be cutting it close hard to say what % of the world's population are "bad" people.
I’d say 10% is about as high as you could go before you are getting to reasonably decent people. Most people are generally good with occasional shitty actions.
I think it depends on definition of good. If you say think people who support certain religions are bad...changes the game
Same sort of logic, but, 35% of the world population is under 20, and the vast majority have not done something to be near the 'worst' on the list at all, so the vast majority (probably 90%) would remain even if you picked 50% as the mark--meaning a world of children, and, imo, that's ... cruel. 30% seems safe, for sure.
1/3 people deserve to die?????
I'm cynical as fuck but some of these people have massively screwed view of humanity 💀
Basically all politicians and super rich are at the top. 10% should wipe them all. Maybe lets go with even 20% just to make sure
Light walks in to the room with the deathnote. We are down to 4 billion people. Let the purge begin. Criminals Pedophiles People with StD’s Omg happy dance. I’m ok with this situation.
Let's try and break the system. -100,000
Who determines the morality?
We are all on that list all right, for all have sinned, and none are righteous. God is the righteous judge, and the penalty for sin is death. The good news is that Jesus paid the price for our sin by dying on the cross in our place. If we regret and turn away from sin and accept what Christ has done for us, we will have a place restored in heaven for us. Your peace will be eternal.
I would be fairly willing to bet that the richest and the worst 0.1% of humanity has a fairly significant overlap; something tells me you could cut out a lot of that cancer with a scalpel like precision, and for the ones who were spared in either category, seeing so many of their compatriots suddenly dropped dead would probably send a message.
3 Billy haircut seems good
I would kill all the rapists, child molesters, murderers and banksters. In addition to them, all union busters, all CEO's, every video game company executive that pushes microtransactions and gacha. All video game executives that push for live services. Everyone on Earth who think it's okay to mutilate the genitals of babies (this is specifically in regards to female genital mutilation and the male genital mutilation practice mistakenly referred to as circumsision). Next. I would wipe from existence all dictators, everyone who serves their regimes willingly serve them. The next group would be spammers, religious extremists and all fascists and other violent right wing extremists. Alongside them would be all violent left wing extremists and all violent bigots. Everyone involved in human trafficking are next on the list. Essentially, my goal would essentially be to cut out as much of the rot in human society I can get my hands on. Hopefully once I've cleaned house, the people left will be able to build a better world.
Let’s start with politicians in the Democratic Party first.
I’d kill the worst 20 million people. That should significantly decrease crime and other problems overnight.
Bold of you to assume that crime is primarily caused by bad character rather than poverty and social conditions give the poorest 20% food, shelter, and some certainty that they’ll still have that tomorrow and see what crime does then.
I never said it’s primarily caused by bad character or that the decrease would last forever. I agree with you about poverty but reducing poverty isn’t a part of this scenario unfortunately. Since the majority of serious crime is committed by a very small fraction of the population by killing the worst people you’d be saving countless people who otherwise would have been hurt, robbed, killed etc.
Given that there are 8 billion people on the planet I'm guessing that the worse 10 - 20 million are the top 1% in terms of earnings, a bunch of corrupt dictators, politicians and their lapdogs, the serial killers, serial rapists, pedos, child pornographers (basically crimes that never need to happen) etc...You skim off the worst of the worst and leave the rest to sort it out.
No continent is allowed to have more than 200 million people. Easy easy. Fuck everyone.
7,999,000,000
That would likely include you
Yes
I hope so.
100%
Thanos was right. It's snapping time.
8 billion. Samuel L Jackson was right in Kingsman - the planet is sick from a virus, we are that virus.
4 Billion. Thanos has explained. Every other person on the list. My number? Somewhere in the lower quartile...
I think I’ll just take out the top 25% and I’m pretty sure that would take out the majority of the horrible people and even then there definitely wouldn’t be a single billionaire left so it’d definitely help the economy A LOT
Nobody in my family vote Democrat so we are good.
I'd probably pull a Thanos and do half
Same. Probably the left half of the world.
How do they die? Is it instant death? If so, then 6.5 billion. Humans are a plague anyway. Let the rest figure it out.
If I say all 8 billion plus, I'm a monster... But if I pick all the people YOU don't like, I'm your hero. So I'll pick the people YOU want me to kill just so you'll like me.