7 ms·

You so rarely run into a news story that considers a genuinely difficult ethical question. I think I’d say that it’s morally wrong to run a scam hit darksite to

You so rarely run into a news story that considers a genuinely difficult ethical question. I think I’d say that it’s morally wrong to run a scam hit darksite to steal money from people who want assassins, but it is not obvious. Especially when you consider the larger point that the existence of scams like this one make it harder for a real service to pop up.

rurp 8y ago
There is research showing that suicide rates increase with greater access to easy methods(ie. guns). My guess would be that murders work much the same way. Planning and executing a murder is difficult, signing up for a website and sending bitcoin is easy. I suspect that murder appearing more accessible encourages more people to pursue it. Obviously a scammer won't pull off an actual hit, but I worry that the person paying might be more willing to pursue other methods after months of thinking about it and being led on by the scammer.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  A small argument here... where it seems you are misusing causality. >There is research showing that suicide rates increase with greater access to easy methods(ie. guns). Saying that "access to guns" increases suicide is a very misleading statement often used intentionally. As there is no concern for the opposite effect of ownership nor any reasoning of cause vs effect. There are more defensive uses of guns than misuses, including suicides according to the CDC. BUT... To tie it to your argument... Does having access to internet CAUSE an increase in murder for hire? If we want to limit murder for hire - Should we ban Tor or encryption, should be allow our civil rights to be removed because some people will misuse them? By your wording especially-yes because these things are 'easy', it's just signing up for a website and making a bitcoin transfer after all. I question any line of thought that leads with "this is bad because people might misuse it" or that "we should stop people thinking about something".
  - mattigames 8y ago
    > "this is bad because people might misuse it" Well, that's the reason you can't buy a nuclear gun even if you have the money it costs; because you "might misuse it" or maybe you just want it for a collection, doesn't matter you can't have one; so its not as black as white as some might believe.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      That's a disingenuous argument. We're talking about guns and in a broader sense encryption access as it pertains to the article. Which are two things that have legitimate and defensive purposes. Something like a "nuclear gun" or DDoS attack has no defensive purpose. In the terms of firearms, you jumped to ordinance when the topic is about arms. I hope you didn't do so intentionally.
      - mattigames 8y ago
        Ok you want to get really specific about guns, let's do that. The reason guns are so popular for suicide is because it is immediate, unlike filling your car with carbone dioxide (gas) or figuring out how to hang yourself. The immediateness give suicidal people a lot less minutes to further consider their decision, an minutes are very important in the case of these people, specially when the decision hasn't been in their heads for years but only for days meaning a emotional response to an traumatic event, for example that's what happened to Katie Stubblefield, broke with his boyfriend then took his brother's rifle and shot herself in the head at her parent's house, you see... when you fail to kill yourself by hanging there is not pretty much any lasting damages due such failed attempt, unfortunately for Katie the same cannot be said for rifle shots, she was found by her mother with pretty much nothing left of her face but lots of blood and exposed bone and still breathing; so yeah, guns make the suicide issue a lot more complex for multiple reasons while there is no upside for society, America would be pretty much the same if after 1900 guns had been banned, of course you think otherwise, you give it some emotional weight or some false protection purpose, given countries without guns on their streets don't seem to be doing any worse.
arisAlexis 8y ago
would it still be morally wrong if the police ran it? I think not they frequently run covert operations. Thus a non-police vigilante would not ve wrong either right?
- Eliezer 8y ago
  Yes, still wrong if the police ran it. I think that in the end, the fate of the world is more likely to hang on how much people can trust each other, than on having even fewer assassins.
patrec 8y ago
So what makes it unethical in your opinion?

rurp 8y ago

There is research showing that suicide rates increase with greater access to easy methods(ie. guns). My guess would be that murders work much the same way. Planning and executing a murder is difficult, signing up for a website and sending bitcoin is easy. I suspect that murder appearing more accessible encourages more people to pursue it. Obviously a scammer won't pull off an actual hit, but I worry that the person paying might be more willing to pursue other methods after months of thinking about it and being led on by the scammer.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
A small argument here... where it seems you are misusing causality. >There is research showing that suicide rates increase with greater access to easy methods(ie. guns). Saying that "access to guns" increases suicide is a very misleading statement often used intentionally. As there is no concern for the opposite effect of ownership nor any reasoning of cause vs effect. There are more defensive uses of guns than misuses, including suicides according to the CDC. BUT... To tie it to your argument... Does having access to internet CAUSE an increase in murder for hire? If we want to limit murder for hire - Should we ban Tor or encryption, should be allow our civil rights to be removed because some people will misuse them? By your wording especially-yes because these things are 'easy', it's just signing up for a website and making a bitcoin transfer after all. I question any line of thought that leads with "this is bad because people might misuse it" or that "we should stop people thinking about something".
- mattigames 8y ago
  > "this is bad because people might misuse it" Well, that's the reason you can't buy a nuclear gun even if you have the money it costs; because you "might misuse it" or maybe you just want it for a collection, doesn't matter you can't have one; so its not as black as white as some might believe.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    That's a disingenuous argument. We're talking about guns and in a broader sense encryption access as it pertains to the article. Which are two things that have legitimate and defensive purposes. Something like a "nuclear gun" or DDoS attack has no defensive purpose. In the terms of firearms, you jumped to ordinance when the topic is about arms. I hope you didn't do so intentionally.
    - mattigames 8y ago
      Ok you want to get really specific about guns, let's do that. The reason guns are so popular for suicide is because it is immediate, unlike filling your car with carbone dioxide (gas) or figuring out how to hang yourself. The immediateness give suicidal people a lot less minutes to further consider their decision, an minutes are very important in the case of these people, specially when the decision hasn't been in their heads for years but only for days meaning a emotional response to an traumatic event, for example that's what happened to Katie Stubblefield, broke with his boyfriend then took his brother's rifle and shot herself in the head at her parent's house, you see... when you fail to kill yourself by hanging there is not pretty much any lasting damages due such failed attempt, unfortunately for Katie the same cannot be said for rifle shots, she was found by her mother with pretty much nothing left of her face but lots of blood and exposed bone and still breathing; so yeah, guns make the suicide issue a lot more complex for multiple reasons while there is no upside for society, America would be pretty much the same if after 1900 guns had been banned, of course you think otherwise, you give it some emotional weight or some false protection purpose, given countries without guns on their streets don't seem to be doing any worse.

arisAlexis 8y ago

would it still be morally wrong if the police ran it? I think not they frequently run covert operations. Thus a non-police vigilante would not ve wrong either right?

Eliezer 8y ago
Yes, still wrong if the police ran it. I think that in the end, the fate of the world is more likely to hang on how much people can trust each other, than on having even fewer assassins.

patrec 8y ago

So what makes it unethical in your opinion?