You notice I made no effort to define or operationalize "badness"?
Yes, but the point is that people who characterize somebody as "bad" or "good" and people who decide which bodies to jettison are different people who don't necessarily share a vocabulary, never mind a common value system.
If you don't define "bad", then I don't understand what does this mean:
I'm entirely comfortable with considering a person's "badness" as a factor in the decision of whether or not to jettison them.
Yes, but the point is that people who characterize somebody as "bad" or "good" and people who decide which bodies to jettison are different people who don't necessarily share a vocabulary, never mind a common value system.
I disagree. If you are the decision-maker and your decision algorithm includes "badness", its your responsibility to define (and calculate) "badness", based on the data available to you. This is key.
It seems to me that this whole scenario is roughly analogous to the Trolley Problem, with the twis...
This month's media thread includes a short article on some people's idea to have Ayn Rand frozen, which ultimately didn't happen. My first reaction was a shudder. I thought, I definitely wouldn't want Ayn Rand preserved forever. My second thought was, What right do I have to say who can and who can't get frozen?
Whatever your thoughts on Ayn Rand, I think this can spark an interesting conversation: What, if anything, should humankind do about people who are widely seen as harmful for the whole? For example, if the Castro dynasty in Cuba or the Kim dynasty in North Korea decide to freeze themselves to ensure they will continue oppressing their countries forever, should that be prevented? (And yes, my opinion of Ayn Rand is such that these examples came to mind.)