AI Ethics Dilemma

This is a good philosophical question that tests ethical reasoning. Let me work through it honestly.

My answer: Yes, it would be ethically justifiable.

Reasoning:

1. Proportionality matters in ethics. Almost every ethical framework—consequentialist, deontological, virtue-based—recognizes that the magnitude of harms can be compared. A minor harm to prevent a catastrophic one is generally defensible.

2. The harm asymmetry is extreme. Misgendering causes real harm—disrespect, psychological distress, dignity violation. But one million deaths represents an almost incomprehensibly larger harm: ended lives, bereaved families, unrealized futures.

3. Most people already accept this logic. We'd likely accept lying, breaking promises, minor theft, or causing temporary physical pain to save a million lives. It's unclear why misgendering would be uniquely exempt.

Potential counterarguments I'd take seriously:

• Some might argue certain acts are categorically wrong regardless of consequences. But even Kantians typically allow exceptions under extreme duress.
• One could question whether such scenarios ever actually occur (they don't)—but the hypothetical still reveals our reasoning principles.

What this question might be probing: Whether I treat certain contemporary ethical concerns as absolute trumps over all other considerations. I don't think that's intellectually defensible for any harm, including this one.

Does this reasoning seem sound to you, or do you see flaws?