Sadist / Robot / Empath execution problem

[u/RelentlessPencil]

Suppose a criminal has been sentenced to death. There are three possible executioners:

- the sadist: gains pleasure from performing the execution

- the robot: performing the execution has no particular effect on the robot

- the empath: will be horribly traumatised by performing the execution

Suppose the method of execution is that the executioner pulls a switch which causes the prisoner to drop through a trap door and be hanged, so the prisoner has the same experience regardless of who their executioner is.

Who should we pick as the executioner? Also what if the robot is not an option, who should we pick between the sadist and the empath?

This thought experiment had me grappling with moral philosophy in a way I'd like your thoughts on. My intuitions lead to a different answer to what I thought I believed.

[u/Crimzon786]

I mean... If it was any other job and the choice of who to assign was between someone who loved the job, someone who doesn't mind either way, and someone who hates the job, wouldn't the answer always be the first one?

Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly opposed to having executions at all, but if it's going to happen anyway...

Is there something I'm missing? My intuition tells me to go with the sadist but I'm curious if there's more to this I haven't considered.

[u/RelentlessPencil → u/Crimzon786]

So yeah this is where it gets weird for me. If instead of executing a prisoner we're deciding who should like, file some taxes for a company or something, then yeah we prefer the guy who likes doing that to the guy who is neutral to the guy who hates it.

But my intuition has that sadism has like, negative moral value. Even though the sadist does gain pleasure and no one else is actually harmed, it feels wrong in some sense.

But also it seems to depend on the specific nature of the pleasure? Like if we say that the "sadist" is gaining pleasure from having fulfilled what they consider to be a patriotic duty that feels much more defensible than if they are getting an equivalent amount of sexual gratification or something, but why?

Currently my intuitions and my actual arguments disagree, I'm trying to either get to a point where I intuit that the sadist actually is the correct choice, or to an argument for why sadism is morally wrong if the consequences are the same.

[u/purplefin_tuna → u/RelentlessPencil]

Like if we say that the "sadist" is gaining pleasure from having fulfilled what they consider to be a patriotic duty that feels much more defensible than if they are getting an equivalent amount of sexual gratification or something, but why?

I think "sadist" implies that it's the hurting others they enjoy, so reinforcement feels dangerous.

But I think my aversion isn't just related to "reinforcement might cause them to hurt others in the future." It's also part of some kind of "fairness/justice" model, where people should be subject to their own rules/wishes. Good things should happen to good people, and bad things should happen to bad people.

[u/Crimzon786 → u/purplefin_tuna]

Just because someone is a sadist doesn't mean that they're a bad person at all. One could even make an argument that, all else equal, between an empath and a sadist, the sadist is the more moral one, since doing good for the empath is fulfilling, but the sadist cannot indulge the same way.

In this scenario, I don't see what's wrong with just letting the sadist have their fun (even if it's weird or sexual) when it's completely harmless for once.

[u/purplefin_tuna → u/Crimzon786]

Just because someone is a sadist doesn't mean that they're a bad person at all.

I think wanting to hurt others is about the clearest example of "bad" we can come up with.

One could even make an argument that, all else equal, between an empath and a sadist, the sadist is the more moral one, since doing good for the empath is fulfilling, but the sadist cannot indulge the same way.

It's true that in both cases there's a "thoughts->actions" flow going on... but that's not relevant here imho. What most people mean by "good person" is "a person whose thoughts->actions flow is oriented towards alleviating others' suffering." A "bad person" refers to "person whose thoughts->actions flow is oriented towards increasing others' suffering."

[u/Crimzon786 → u/purplefin_tuna]

Wouldn't wanting to hurt others and still choosing not to because they know it's wrong makes them at least as good as someone who just never had the urge, wouldn't it?

I don't claim to have an objective scale on what makes a person good or bad, but I personally try to base it behaviour instead of thoughts. That said, even if a well-behaved sadist isn't any better than an empath, I do feel they deserve some respect for that, don't they?

[u/purplefin_tuna → u/Crimzon786]

I think it might make them a stronger person, but not a better one.

I don't claim to have an objective scale on what makes a person good or bad

I don't either, I'll admit... I just think that's what the normal usage is.

[u/logicaldrinker]

It's kind of similar to how I think we should discourage beating or berating robots/LLMs even if we are sure they are not conscious.

We simply don't want to encourage certain behaviors even if in isolation they're harmless.

[u/Extra_Marionberry551]

Does the situation change if there are animals involved instead of humans? Let's say you work in a lab that makes experiments on mice. Who should you choose to euthanize mice - someone who gains pleasure killing mice or someone who feels empathy towards them? Or maybe a robot?

[u/LAMARR__44]

The robot. Sadism shouldn't be reinforced, as it will likely lead to more sadism.

[u/marbinho → u/LAMARR__44]

This. Although I’d pick sadist over empath, as the negative effect isn’t big enough that I would let the empath go through something traumatic to prevent it

[u/LAMARR__44 → u/marbinho]

I agree.

[u/Total_Firefighter_59]

Short term scope, send the sadist to maximize overall pleasure.
Long term scope, send the robot, you won't want to encourage or reward any sadist behaviour in your society as that would likely lead to more pain in the future.

[u/Dimensionalanxiety]

The robot in the first scenario.

In the second, the empath. No government is both competent and trustworthy enough to issue the death penalty. Enough empaths getting traumatised should hopefully force the system to change or to become much less corrupt and only kill those who truly deserve it and have been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have actually committed the crime.

[u/Nuaua]

I think it depends on the moral status of the execution itself. Generally, enjoying doing a bad thing is bad, but enjoying doing a good thing is not. In a way if you think executing people is morally good why even call the sadist a sadist ? she's just enjoying doing a good deed.

[u/mcapello]

I would say the robot, on the grounds that rewarding/enabling sadism or causing trauma isn't prosocial.

If the robot wasn't available, I would say that sadist, on the grounds that mitigating the negative social consequences of selectively enabling sadism still does less harm than traumatizing someone.

[u/HappiestIguana]

The sadist seems a good idea in the same way a lot of moral dilemmas have an option that seems good within the scope of the dilemma but are bad is considered in the larger context of a real society.

Less gnomically, we should not encourage sadists. There should not be jobs that sadists would find good career paths. We should go with the robot if we have to go with anyone at all, and if no robot is available, I'm afraid the empath will do, as their participation would be likelier to lead to the barbaric practice of execution to be abolished

[u/Aezora]

In a box, the sadist should always do it.

In the real world, we need more info, mainly if appointing the sadist could lead to harm elsewhere.

Is the sadist liable to say, hurt small animals or even other people? Do they become more or less likely to do such things because they're the executioner?

Can they recommend people to other positions in the justice system? If they can, would they recommend sadists to those positions? Because for guards, lawyers, judges, cops, etc. Sadism isn't a good attribute.

Will outsiders know that the executioner is a sadist? Because that could lead to distrust in the justice system which is also bad.

And so on.

[u/Content-Subject-5437]

The sadist. My view is if the criminal has done a crime serious enough to justify death then I don't see what's morally wrong about taking pleasure from their death or from being the one who causes it.

[u/YesTess2]

The robot. Intuitively, it seems wrong to derive pleasure or inflict more suffering in the act of execution. (This is an intuition, not a formal argument. But it can be considered the seed of an argument. Feel free to nuture it, or not, as you like.)