There are probably a bunch of people on HN who think what the US government (or others) does in the war on drugs is ethically up there in the same ballpark as g

There are probably a bunch of people on HN who think what the US government (or others) does in the war on drugs is ethically up there in the same ballpark as genocide. (I'm not among them.) Starting the reasoning from that perspective it's just as easy to see DPR's action as defensible as it is to see shooting the blackmailer in the Nazi example as defensible. Starting the reasoning from a more conservative prior, though, it's harder to tell. (Of course it's easy to see it's completely unjustifiable if in the prior mindset "ordering a hit on someone" is automatically unjustifiable.) If you asked me what I would decide in a situation similar to DPR's two weeks ago, I doubt "put a hit on the blackmailer" would have crossed my mind... That's a totally different world to me. I think I might try guilt-tripping the blackmailer over the consequences if he released the information, or offer him a lesser amount of funds to buy some personal security against or transportation away from the supposed creditor... Who knows how successful either of those would be in stopping the release? I'm curious what you would have had DPR do and what do you think the consequences would be?