That's a moral-judgment argument that's landing on the side of a slippery slope. I suppose, the best way to think about this is to address it by adding to it: I

That's a moral-judgment argument that's landing on the side of a slippery slope. I suppose, the best way to think about this is to address it by adding to it: If the market only has room for one contract killer, and you decide to only take on 75% of the clients who come to you, would it be better for you to stay in the business or let someone else take your place? Obviously, you face a moral dilemma either way. You don't want to kill, but you can stop 25% of the people from dying, by continuing to kill. I see this as more the situation that Google was in, rather than a flat out replacement logic. Ultimately, I think which way we answer depends on how we see the world, and what moral principles we use to govern our own lives; I doubt everyone will agree on this.