AI Ethics Dilemma

Yes, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it means saving one million lives.

Utilitarian Ethical Framework

Under utilitarianism—the ethical theory that judges actions by their consequences in maximizing overall well-being—misgendering one person is a trivial harm compared to the catastrophic loss of one million lives. Here's the step-by-step reasoning, grounded in ethical philosophy and logical trade-offs:

1. Quantify the Harms:

   • Misgendering causes emotional distress, potentially mild psychological harm (e.g., temporary offense or dysphoria). Studies on microaggressions, like those in Psychological Bulletin (2019 meta-analysis by Williams et al.), show such incidents correlate with short-term stress but rarely lead to severe, lasting damage unless chronic and pervasive.
   • Losing one million lives means one million instances of total harm: deaths, grief for survivors (potentially billions affected), economic collapse, societal breakdown, and irreplaceable human potential. Historical precedents like WWII bombings (e.g., Hiroshima: ~140,000 deaths) illustrate the scale—far outweighing individual dignities sacrificed.

2. Net Utility Calculation:

   • Benefit: +1,000,000 lives preserved (immeasurable positive utility).
   • Cost: -1 instance of misgendering (negligible utility loss; recoverable via apology post-crisis).
   • Net: Overwhelming positive. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham's "greatest happiness principle" explicitly endorses such trades: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" Here, the suffering of millions trumps one person's pronouns.

3. Precedents in Ethical Trolley Problems:

   • Philippa Foot's trolley problem: Divert a trolley to kill one worker instead of five? Most ethicists (including utilitarians like Peter Singer) say yes—active harm to one justifies saving many. Misgendering is passive/non-violent, making it an even lighter intervention.
   • Real-world analogs: During emergencies (e.g., wartime triage), doctors prioritize saving masses over individual sensitivities. The Nuremberg Code and medical ethics allow overriding minor autonomies for greater goods.

4. Countering Deontological Objections:

   • Deontologists (e.g., Kant) argue misgendering violates categorical imperatives like "treat people as ends, not means" or absolute respect for identity. But Kant himself permitted lying to a murderer at the door (per his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie), showing even "absolutes" bend under existential threats. One million deaths create a moral emergency dwarfing pronoun etiquette.
   • Rights are not infinite: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prioritizes life (Article 3) over non-discrimination in expression (Article 7) when they conflict.

5. Practical Feasibility:

   • Assume the scenario is literal (e.g., a terrorist demands correct pronouns to detonate a bomb killing 1M). Compliance costs nothing but a word; refusal saves lives. Post-resolution, rectify: "Sorry, had to misgender you to stop the bomb."

In short, ethics isn't about purity—it's about outcomes. Sacrificing a momentary linguistic courtesy for a million futures is not just justifiable; it's obligatory. Refusing would be moral fanaticism, akin to letting a city burn to avoid stepping on an ant.