If there is absolutely no other option, yes. Even dropping nukes over the whole earth is okay if that solves a massive long term problem.

Yeah I guess that’s the ultimate math of it. I’m new to chewing this riddle. I think the most popular answer is to shout that the riddle doesn’t exist.

I will gladly torture some puppies if it means that no more dogs are killed after that. The end result is more important than short term “issues”.

I used to have an ethical dilemma about animal testing in medicine but then realised that the animals would have been killed anyways and would have had a shitty life before that, in farms or something. Now, at least their suffering is not in vain.

Ideally, there would be no suffering of any organism, but if push comes to shove, you have to make sacrifices.

Yeah the logic is clear. But consider the lesson of War Games.

The riddle can also be a mindfucking trap. The first, implicit, assertion of these kinds of riddles is that you must solve the riddle because the riddle is important (because it accurately represents reality or something)

But that might not be so.

So if we’re gonna cut through the riddle then that might be our access point.