[greedyspectator]

@Demi
I'm pretty sure the conditions are not self defensive. We're assuming the organ collector could not attack back at this moment. I also added the clause/ premise of sufficiently advanced technology to preserve his organs. There are three choices at hand here. I will offer my analyses for all three.

> Kill the guy because he's evil and society becomes better off without him.
> Kill the guy and harvest his organs to save someone else.
> Spare the guy.

The problem with 1 is that if you kill the guy but don't harvest his organs to save someone else, you have murdered that someone else. It's the same way that you have two buttons in front of you, one saves the life of a terminally ill person while the other does nothing. If you choose the button that does nothing, you have murdered the terminally ill person because you could have saved him by choosing the other option. Again, batman-joker reference.

The problem with 3 is that by sparing the person, you will allow him to continue murdering others. It would be the same as if you were murdering those people, since you could have saved them by just killing the person.

With 2, you directly saved a life by killing the organ-harvester's. You also saved a lot of lives by making him unable to harm his future victims. Therefore, in my opinion, choice 2 obeys 'thou shall not kill' in the greatest extent possible.

Going to sleep now. Good night.