[X] Orochimaru is a monster and should be reformed.
[X] Orochimaru is a monster and should be neutralized.
[X] Orochimaru is a monster and should be neutralized, then reformed from a position of safety.
I think there are two axes along which we can consider Oro states: prosocial-antisocial (to people in general) and aligned-opposed (to us, specifically). Currently, Oro is antisocial, but probably fairly neutral to us. I've made an alignment chart of Oro states and where they (in my opinion) sit as targets for reform; on the left column, "prosocial" means "willing to share techniques/collaborate/generally help people", "antisocial" means "continues to torture people, threaten kidnapping if not appeased, etc.", and "Neutral" means "doesn't torture people but continues working on only his own goals, with deals rare and requiring very high-value trades from the other party". (Obviously this is a simplification, but I think it's a helpful one.)
| Aligned | Neutral | Opposed |
Prosocial | Ideal. Oro joins Uplift and turns his talents to our cause, sharing his techniques with us and generally becoming a member of our family. | Acceptable. Oro doesn't especially care about us, but is willing to help and is receptive to deals, allowing us to continue to extract value from him and potentially move to the prosocial-aligned state. | Tolerable. Oro dislikes us, but is in general prosocial and may be willing to repair our relationship in future. Difficult to see how we would arrive at this state, assuming our actions are responsible for reforming Oro - Oro being prosocial implies willingness to work with us even if we annoyed him in the process of reforming him. |
Neutral | Acceptable. Oro is positively inclined towards us and is not torturing people, but is still primarily focused on his own goals. | Acceptable. Oro continues to pursue his own goals, but is not a danger to us or anyone else in doing so. | Tolerable. Oro dislikes us, but doesn't care about us enough to engage in social manipulations against us and will not break the law to e.g. kidnap us. |
Antisocial | Suboptimal, but better than we have now. We are safe from Oro and may even benefit from him, but the rest of Leaf isn't. May lay groundwork for future reformation. However, difficult to see how we'd reach this state. | Current state. Oro tortures people, but is not inclined to go after us specifically and will listen to us if we offer mutually beneficial deals. | Imminent crisis. Oro is still antisocial and is personally opposed to us; our lifespan is now as long as it takes him to come up with a way to kill us that's deniable to the Hokage. |
Of these states, I think really any of the non-antisocial states would be sufficient to designate neutralizing Oro as not worth the effort. If someone gave us a one-time-only-chance to press a button labelled "kill Oro", I'd be tempted to press it in the neutral non-aligned states (and maybe the neutral aligned state too, depending on the details), because of the risk that Oro changes his mind in future; but the non-antisocial states would be sufficient for me not to vote to pull the trigger on a
risky Oro-neutralization plan. In the antisocial-aligned state, whether I would approve of the plan depends very heavily on how susceptible Oro seems to further reformation and exactly how risky the plan is; Neutral-Aligned Oro is better than dead Oro, but if the choice is between 99% chance of dead Oro and 20% chance of Neutral-Aligned Oro, I'm taking the dead Oro option.
(I considered whether there's a precommitment issue in here, but I don't think there is. Us committing to kill Oro in future when we're strong enough will not move the needle for him, except possibly to induce him to kill us first, because he (almost certainly) thinks the chance of us both being able to kill him and actually going through with it is so low as to not be worth considering. There might be a notional precommitment on the part of Leaf to kill people like him, but if there was, it was waived by whichever Hokage accepted him back into Leaf in exchange for his loyalty (such as it is); and it might not extend to S-rankers. And there probably isn't a coherent enough "humanity" in this setting for it to have a precommitment to kill him, even in the notional "if we had a chance to discuss it we'd agree on this, so I'm going to act as if it's already agreed" sense. So I don't think this is an issue for our decision-making.)