= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Open Thread: May 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (543)
Most people's intuition is that assassination is worse than war, but simple utilitarianism suggests that war is much worse.
I have some ideas about why assassination isn't a tool for getting reliable outcomes-- leaders are sufficiently entangled in the groups that they lead that removing a leader isn't like removing a counter from a game, it's like cutting a piece out of a web which is going to rebuild itself in not quite the same shape-- but this doesn't add up to why assassination could be worse than war.
Is there any reason to think the common intuition is right?
Who thinks assassination is worse than war?
I could make an argument for it, though: If countries engaged regularly in assassination, it would never come to a conclusion, and would not reduce (and might increase) the incidence of war. Phrasing it as "which is worse" makes it sound like we can choose one or the other. This assumes that an assassination can prevent a war (and doesn't count the cases where it starts a war).
It seems to me that the vast majority of people think of war as a legitimate tool of national policy, but are horrified by assassination.