Why Homicides are Bad

Thus far, as I've claimed previously, my philosophy on free-will as a spectrum leaves open a justification for mass murder (https://listed.to/@vt/33768/free-will). However, here I will rectify this problem. It is obvious to everyone that murder is immoral (I use morality to indicate the personal feelings to right and wrong). However, here I'll assert that murder is also unethical. My argument consists of two parts: why genocide would be ineffective, epistemologically, and probability.

First I'll elaborate on why genocide is even a possible ethical action. In my philosophy, free-will is the ability to do good, i.e. increase complexity. Thus trait is distributed on a spectrum of ability to defy nature. It naturally follows that there is going to be variation in the human species due to us not being homogeneous. Therefore some people are "freer" than others. Thus some may see it as justifiable to kill those who are less "free" in order to dedicate more resources towards those who are free. My philosophy also employs the idea of evolution to free-will with there being a direction connection to one's species and thus genome. Thus this genocide would have another benefit - ensuring the breeding pool to be between increasingly "freer" organisms, evolving the species. If I had started this blog earlier in my life, I would've made a post about how humans have transcended above evolution as a consequence of our free-will, massive reduction of mating criterion's dependence on phenotype (think money, personality, family/social status, etc.), and increased access to mates (globalization and sperm/egg? banks). However this view has been replaced. I note this because I still find it strange to reevaluate how much of my previous beliefs rested on such a simple principle as binary free-will. This really attests to the topic's important, elegance, and simplicity.

Now I'll explain why genocide is ineffective. I strongly doubt the existence of a way to test free-will. Clearly one is needed if one is to find those who are less "free". But let's suppose you have a reliable test in hand. Now you administer it, and they live. Now that person can simply tell another person, say their friends or family what they did. Now person B can simple do what person A did and score equally. Thus the issue of Moloch appears - people have greedy algorithms to save the people they love, thus they do it and sacrifice their authenticity. This can't be resolved by making unique tests because you lose standardization, many many resources, and reliability in content. "OK then", says the maniac. "How about a test that can't be deceived?" This is impossible by this philosophy, for any test is going to be to exist physically and thus can be avoided by using any amount of free-will, rendering any test unreliable.

"Fine then, I'll just make the judgements based on behavior", they respond. I'll make a post on this in the future, but it is impossible to know something. Thus it is impossible to know you're right. With such an irreversible process such as murder, one should make sure one is right. Therefore genocide shouldn't occur. In addition, suppose YOU are the one who isn't free. Thus your judgement could very well be ineffective in determining how free people are. It is also possible that I'm not free and all these ideas are fruitless.

there is also some value to even unfree people. It truly is incredible that humans have, on some level, been able to communicate and convey ideas to any other human being through the development of translators, lingua franca, the internet, etc. Thus even unfree humans have a probability of having some super ingenious idea and defying the physical world and then promptly uses humanity's communication ability to spread it.

Thus murder is bad.