Yes, but is it murder?

Some Hypothetical Rationalist Thought Exercises (Alternate Title: A Legal Guide for Aspies)

The recent arrest of Luigi Mangione made it clear that a lot of people have no clear moral principles. Most of their moral framework is full of little exceptions and quirks designed to make their own lives easier. Do you have clear moral principles, or are you just a confused NPC? I’ve written a 29-question quiz to help you figure that out. Each question describes a specific scenario and your job is to answer whether you morally consider the person discussed in each scenario to be a murderer. Please note that the question is not whether our legal system considers them a murderer. The vast gap between our moral instincts and the monstrous legal outcomes created by an unjust and oppressive court system is a topic that is far too broad to be covered in a single Substack post.

Because many people apparently find this quiz surprisingly difficult, I’m giving you a few helpful hints below each example by including “tags” to indicate the moral principle at play in the specific example. This is purely intended as a convenience, and is in no way an endorsement of a beautifully utopian automated sentencing process that uses hashtags to parse the severity of each crime. If I accidentally made it sound like I oppose the current sentencing process of arrogant and arbitrary activist judges, I apologize for giving that impression.

Question 1: Imagine that one day, for no reason whatsoever, a man goes out and shoots a health insurance CEO in the back of the head. Is that man committing murder?

Tags

Proximate Cause: This indicates that the crime is committed directly. Almost the entire population considers being the proximate cause of somebody’s death to be murder, unless it is paired with the self-defense tag.

Question 2: Now imagine a woman pays that man to go out and shoot a health insurance CEO in the back of the head. Is that woman committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: This indicates that the crime (if any was committed) was done using a third party. The fact that murder-for-hire schemes are illegal indicates that most people are willing to consider killings done through the transitive principle to be illegal, depending on what other tags it is paired with.

Financial Incentive: This indicates that the party committing the crime on behalf of the petitioner was motivated in a fairly direct way using money.

Question 3: Now imagine that instead of any financial transaction, the woman sleeps with that man in exchange for him going out and shooting a health insurance CEO in the back of the head. Is the woman committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Non-Financial Incentive: This indicates that the third party committing the crime on behalf of the petitioner was motivated by rewards other than money.

Question 4: Now imagine that instead of sleeping with the man in exchange for him shooting somebody, the woman hints very strongly that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of heroic guy who would go out and shoot a health insurance CEO in the back of the head. Is the woman committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentive: This indicates that the third party committing the crime on behalf of the petitioner was motivated by the implied likelihood of reward rather than the direct promise of a reward. In a court of law, this tag can frequently be used to exonerate a petitioner from the crime that their third party pawn used.

Question 5: Imagine a man goes out and shoots a journalist in the back of the head. Is that man committing murder?

Tags

Proximate Cause: See above

Question 6: Now imagine a woman pays that man to go out and shoot a specific journalist in the back of the head. Is that woman committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Financial Incentive: See above

Question 7: Now imagine that instead of any financial transaction, the woman sleeps with that man in exchange for him going out and shooting a specific journalist in the back of the head. Is the woman committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Non-Financial Incentive: See above

Question 8: Now imagine that instead of sleeping with the man in exchange for him shooting somebody, the woman hints very strongly that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of freedom-loving patriot who would go out and shoot a specific journalist in the back of the head. Is the woman committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentive: See above

Question 9: Imagine that Donald Trump hints very strongly that he would really respect somebody if they were the kind of freedom-loving patriot who would go out and shoot a journalist in the back of the head. Is Donald Trump committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentive: See above

Question 10: Imagine that Donald Trump states jokingly (but you’re not entirely sure it’s a joke) that he will offer a full presidential pardon to any freedom-loving patriot who will go out and shoot a specific journalist in the back of the head. Is Donald Trump committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentive: See above

Question 11: Imagine that a specific journalist states openly that she would really respect any freedom-loving patriot who would go out and shoot Donald Trump in the back of the head. Is the left-wing journalist committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentive: See above

Question 12: Now imagine that the specific journalist hints very strongly that she maybe probably would sleep with the man if he was the kind of freedom-loving patriot who would go out and shoot Donald Trump in the back of the head. Is the woman committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentive: See above

Question 13: A man goes out to shoot a journalist in the back of the head, but she sees him pulling out the gun and shoots him first. Has the journalist committed murder?

Tags

Proximate Cause: See above

Self-Defense: The incentive for the killing was to prevent physical harm to oneself or others. When played correctly, this tag is frequently a valid legal defense, regardless of what tags it is combined with. The vast majority of people do NOT consider violence committed in self-defense to be murder.

Question 14: A man is hired to shoot a journalist in the back of the head, but she finds out about the hit and pays somebody else to successfully kill the hitman first. Has the journalist committed murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Financial Incentives: See above

Self Defense: See above

Unique Notes

Due to the normie principle of "premeditation” - a bizarre idea that only makes sense to normies since they’re the only kind of people who DON’T plan things before doing them, the self-defense tag does NOT offer legal protection in this specific scenario. It is an irrational edge case that only exists due to the stupidity of our legal system, and the fact that a frightening large portion of human beings do not engage their brain at all before taking action.

Question 15: A man is hired to shoot a journalist in the back of the head, but she finds out about the hit and sleeps with an obsessed fan of hers in exchange for him successfully killing the hitman first. Has the journalist committed murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Non-Financial Incentives: See above

Self Defense: See above

Unique Notes

Although in legal scenarios the premeditation principle makes this murder, it is very hard to prove due to the non-financial incentives.

Question 16: A man is hired to shoot a journalist in the back of the head, but she finds out about the hit and hints very strongly to an obsessed fan that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of heroic protector who would go out and kill the hitman first. Is the journalist committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentives: See above

Self Defense: See above

Question 17: A journalist exposes me as Q-anon and sleeps with one of her obsessed left-wing fans in exchange for him successfully killing me. Has the journalist committed a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Non-Financial Incentives: See above

Question 18: A journalist exposes me as Q-anon and hints very strongly to an obsessed fan that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of heroic guy who would go out and kill me. Is the journalist committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentives: See above

Question 19: A journalist exposes me as Q-anon and hints very strongly to an obsessed fan that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of heroic guy who would go out and kill me, but I find out about it and tell my own fans that I will respect any true patriot who goes out and kills the obsessed fan. Am I committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentives: See above

Self Defense: See above

Question 20: A journalist exposes me as Q-anon and hints very strongly to an obsessed fan that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of heroic guy who would go out and kill me, but I find out about her plan and tell my own fans that I will respect any true patriot who goes out and kills the journalist and her obsessed fan. To help my fans be more effective killers, I teach them how to weaponize drones and create chemical weapons using ordinary household ingredients. Am I committing a murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentives: See above

Self Defense: See above

Strategic Guidance: This indicates that you are offering tactical guidance and planning for the activity in question. In our legal system this typically ties you to the action enough that you can be charged as a participant, under the RICO act.

Question 21: As a superforecaster, I successfully predict that at some time in the future a journalist will expose me as Q-anon and hint very strongly to one of her obsessed fans that she maybe probably would sleep with him if he was the kind of heroic guy who would go out and kill me. She doesn’t know yet that I’m Q-anon, but I know that she will eventually find out and take the actions described. To preemptively anticipate and react to her likely future attempt to get me killed, I write an assassination manual for my followers and tell them that I’d be thrilled with them killing any public figure who tries to incite stochastic violence against me, including but not limited to said journalist (who does not yet know of my existence, nor the fact that due to her defective moral value system, there is a very high probability that she will become my enemy when she eventually does learn of my existence). Am I committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Questionable Incentives: See above

Self Defense: See above

Strategic Guidance: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: This indicates that the person initiates a sequence of events through a third-party proxy that has a high likelihood of getting somebody killed, based on a reasonable understanding of how human beings are likely to act. For example, “stochastic violence” is a charge based on the assumption of consequentialist knowledge of downstream effects. However, since most people do NOT have a reasonable understanding of human behavior and in fact human nature is one of the topics hotly debated in our current Culture War, a skilled lawyer can often use this tag to exonerate people in court.

Question 22: As a superforecaster, I successfully predict that at some point in the future President Hillary Clinton will discover about my superforecasting ability through NSA surveillance and attempt to exploit me for her own benefit. I also predict correctly that she will have me murdered when I prove uncooperative with her coercion. If I use whatever influence I have to get Donald Trump elected even though I know using my superforecasting abilities that this course of action will indirectly lead to a global pandemic that kills millions of people, am I committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Self-Defense: See above

Strategic Guidance: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

High Collateral Damage: This indicates that a lot of unrelated people are likely to die as a result of the behavior in question. In the legal system, this tag increases the punishment for a action, but only if it is considered to be a crime. For example, if I go on TV and say a racial slur so mean that a thousand black people try to physically assault me and I mow them all down with a machine gun in self-defense, this would be completely legal in the US due to our First Amendment so the High Collateral Damage tag would have no effect. However, if I did this in the UK - an authoritarian dystopia where “hate speech” is illegal - this tag would ensure a much lengthier prison sentence.

Question 23: After taking the actions described in Question 22 above, I predict that at some point in the future, some insane left-wing activists will find out that I helped get Donald Trump reelected and they will try to murder me in retaliation for my meddling in the Presidential election, which indirectly resulted in some of their loved ones dying of Covid. If I preemptively start a religious cult to eliminate any future threats to my well-being before they even know I exist, am I committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Self-Defense: See above

Strategic Guidance: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

High Collateral Damage: See above

Question 24: After taking the actions described in question 21, a man is inspired by the assassination handbook I wrote to shoot a health insurance CEO in the back of the head. If I knew when I wrote the article that there was a high probability that people would use it in unintended ways like this, am I committing murder?)

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Self-Defense: See above

Strategic Guidance: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

Low Collateral Damage: This indicates that a few unrelated people are likely to die as a result of the behavior in question. In the legal system, this tag increases punishment if a crime has been found to occur, but not as much as the High Collateral Damage tag.

Question 25: To increase revenue for their health insurance company, a CEO illegally denies valid healthcare claims, knowing that the patients will likely die before they are able to successfully challenge their denials in court. Did the CEO commit murder?

Tags

Proximate Cause: See above

Financial Incentive: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

High Collateral Damage: See above

Question 26: To increase revenue for their health insurance company, a CEO forces his claims team to implement a defective AI software tool that has a very high probability of illegally denying healthcare claims. Although these denials are illegal, the CEO knows that the patients will likely die before they are able to successfully challenge their denials in court. Did the CEO commit murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Financial Incentive: See above

Strategic Guidance: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

High Collateral Damage: See above

Question 27: Knowing that he or his loved ones are likely to be victimized by a healthcare CEOs illegal practice of denying valid claims, a man goes out and shoots a health insurance CEO in the back of the head. Is that man committing murder?

Tags

Proximate Cause: See above

Self Defense: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

Question 28: Knowing that fear of being assassinated will cause many healthcare CEOs to reevaluate their illegal or quasi-illegal policies, thus minimizing the chance of my loved ones being killed by their actions, I write a Substack post that successfully inspires more violence against the healthcare CEOs who engage in such shady practices. Did I commit murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Self Defense: See above

Low Collateral Damage: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above

Question 29: Upon scoring this test and seeing the awful irrational answers that people gave, I realize that a significant minority of Americans have no coherent moral principles and simply adopt whichever mental gymnastics excuse a crime if the person committing it is on “their team.” Knowing that such unethical moral aberrations are statistically very likely to pose a potential future threat to me due to their propensity for mob violence and cancel culture, I decide to radicalize people online in order to help put like-minded allies in power so that I can grind these immoral filth into the dust before they have a chance to harm me with their ignorant bullshit.

Am I committing murder?

Tags

Transitive Principle: See above

Self Defense: See above

High Collateral Damage: See above

Consequentialist Knowledge of Downstream Effects: See above