Moral Dilemma (Revenge)

1000 kills, 1,000,000 kills, it doesn't matter. In retrospect, they might have been doing a service because of an overpopulation issue.
The numbers don't matter; I think the important part is "terrible person" (intent) and 'murderer' (to cease another's existence).

If the criminal is set free, the responsibility of their happiness is technically their own. It is only when someone realizes they could have it better (realization of a lack of something) that they have an opportunity to be sad. Even so, they could still be happy about it (realization of the abundance one has; example, opportunity to fulfill one's self in other ways)

Saying that they don't deserve anything positive is an interesting thing to say. Is existence positive? I would have thought it in itself was neutral.
Assuming it is positive, then they do not deserve to exist. However, this in itself wouldn't give anyone entitlement to sentence the criminal to death.

Revenge: the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.
There's often cases where one person kills someone, and their loved ones seek revenge by trying to kill the murderer. However this is technically immoral.
The thought that killing the murderer is a sense of balance and justice is highly dependant on whether or not the murderer is a psychopath that only has evil intent for others.
It would be, though, more often FAIR to go and murder a loved one of the murderer; say a child was murdered and the parents seek revenge, then the murderer's child should be executed (this applies to non-psychopaths).
For the criminally insane, who might not have family anyway, the only option for revenge might be to prevent anything further from this person (which doesn't apply in this case as there is magic involved); killing them becomes pointless to the loved ones who suffer.
Bottom line: the only person actually entitled (if at all) to revenge is the victim itself - and only to the extent of "harm" the victim had to suffer (i.e. killing their killer - but they're dead so that's kinda hard to do)
Revenge is kind of irrelevant in this case.


In all cases, it is my belief that no one has the right to say / end another person's existence. Whether or not they deserve to exist isn't really up to anyone to say; saying so would be a preference for your own existence. (the murderer was simply trying to enforce his own personal preference for his existence - killing them for your personal preference for your own existence isn't any better)


It is also my belief that intelligence brings about a non-violent nature. One can begin to realize that we're not all that different and the differences that people fight over are simply a lifestyle choice, a preference.

While existing, one has the opportunity to become more intelligent, to become enlightened. Can't say much for non-existence.
To exist in itself is kind of a trivial thing in this regard (one may choose to exist as anything - even as one who commits suicide which seems counter intuitive, but in a grander scheme it is required in the end - statistically speaking there is bound to be at least one)

So this hypothetical situation is also a bit trivial for me; since normally I would say that the criminal's existence should not end. However, I would not necessarily be opposed to those who would sentence the individual to make their choice as they see fit for their own existence. They are choosing to exist as that person with the responsibility.

Assuming that person was me in this hypothetical situation, I would immediately sentence them to death if they showed signs of continuing to end the existence of others simply because there would also be a remote chance that that would be the cause of my own non-existence (came back to murder me) and it is my own responsibility to choose how I exist (continuously or to choose to allow someone to kill me). Even without magic, if they showed no signs of further crimes (ruling out deception), then I would set them free.
This magic though, really fucks things up. Assuming that there was a magical force in place that prevented the criminal to exist as they choose, then that would be considered a form of torture, and ending their existence would be more appropriate (assuming they intended to exist with more freedom or not at all; depending on what the criminal wanted for their existence). If the criminal was perfectly okay with existing as the "terrible person" they choose to be while a magical force prevents them from harming anyone at all, even if it is their intent to do so, then let them exist; set them free.
If this magic changes their intent (essentially dictating their free will), then the magic is evil in itself (unethical).

If the magic is evil, then what is more evil? To end the existence of someone, regardless of what they did or who they are, or to use an evil magic on them for the remainder of their lives?
More importantly, what is the goal here? To be evil or not to be?




In this case, I think it's more of a personal thing.
Do you choose to exist as the person that sentences them to death?
Or do you choose to be the person that sets them free?


If there was more known about what the criminal would perceive to factor into that happiness calculator (assuming total happiness was the goal), then this would be an easy decision.
Hard to say which is actually the better option for the criminal - the presence of opportunity (in existence) in itself tips my scale in favor of setting them free.

To be honest, I think the whole magician thing almost defeats the point of the question. You say that it doesn't cost anything to simply execute him, yet if we let him go free then we know he will live an average life (have a job with an income, etc). This seems like he would be "purified" in some way, ultimately this is the best outcome anyone could hope for. Of course, this could cause the general population to worry because he's still out there, they may not know that he's been "purified."

I don't think it's so much about overall happiness because happiness is often quite temporary. It might make some people feel a sense of relief and/or happiness after hearing that a murderer or terrorist was brought to justice (for example, Osama Bin Laden), but this isn't going to last forever. It will likely make people feel more secure, however.

In our society, we try to protect the rights of our people. I think that's what this issue is really all about. People have certain rights: the American way is to say people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not necessarily happiness itself). I can agree with people having these rights in general. The problem here, for me, is that this person is infringing on people's right to life.

Apparently he's killed 1000 or more people and we have him on trial. Not taking magic into account, we might expect that he continues his killing spree if he were set free, so to protect the rights of the innocent he should be punished (in my view). Then it's a question of if he should be executed or if he should serve jail time (likely a life sentence). The lowest risk solution is obviously to execute him, since he may have buddies trying to break him out of prison. This is because of three reasons:
a) if he just goes to prison, there is large span of time for which he could break out.
b) there could be a substantial chance that other terrorists might want to break him out as well.
c) the cost of him breaking out of prison is very high, possibly hundreds of human lives or more.

Whether executing the murderer means society taking revenge on him or not is another question. It probably depends on your definition of revenge, but I guess the way I see it might be that if executing him is done for the main purpose of an enjoyment in killing someone who caused all of us so much pain, then it should be considered revenge. If he is executed only in order to protect the rights of the people, then this could probably be considered justice. It's the motivation of executing him that is important in determining if it's revenge or not.

Well that's my take on it. Not sure if it's what you were looking for.

I was just thinking about my system of morality (only overall happiness matters) and I thought of an explanation for why happiness is the only thing that matters:

Happiness is basically the value of a living thing's experience. Generally, if the living thing is happy, it is having a good experience. If it is sad, it is having a bad experience.

In the universe (everything), there are two groups of things.



There are objects that exist and the experiences that living things have.

Objects existing have no values that can be good or bad; they are simply things being there.

Experiences, on the other hand, do have a value, as they can be good or bad (obv more than just 2 possible states, but simpler this way). And so, it is better for something to be good than something to be bad. And that is why happiness is the only thing that matters.