If you murder a murderer, you don’t reduce the total number of murderers. You have to murder more than one, but then you’re a serial killer, which is arguably worse. If you’re a serial killer who only kills serial killers, then you are starting to maximize the offset. But once you fuck up and get close to being caught, so your serial killer girlfriend blows up Doakes to keep your secret safe and you pin all your murders on him, you’ve gone too far.

you get eight seasons and three spin-offs.

If you murder a murderer,
then you are a murderer murderer.

A murderer murderer is
still a murderer.

Friend this is the Bad Place do you not remember season 1

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

Murder as punishment? Bad.

Killing someone who has killed before, who is known to commit more murders, to prevent them from committing more murders? Generally bad, too, unless the system is totally broken.

“Thou shalt not kill” is a pretty straightforward commandment. No qualifiers, no exceptions. No “go ahead and kill if you believe you’re justified”.

Per the New testament so long as you accept Jesus afterward and repent you should be fine though.

Kill 1 person its a tragedy, Kill 10000 its a statistic.

This was actually a huge problem in medieval times. The people back then adhered to the existence of the death penalty, but they also didn’t see it as anything aside from a kind of state sanctioned murder rather than how you’d expect many people to see execution. Executioners were thus highly stigmatized, to the point where we have that stereotype today of medieval executioners having that black veil over their heads to conceal their identity, and out of necessity, the role of executioner was inherited like that of a monarch rather than acquired, since often nobody would’ve otherwise sought the job. Executioners were considered so much of an outcast and felt so little incentive to be executioners that it was medieval law that they would get a lifetime supply of free food in order to reduce the burden of the job. They were considered a hesitant necessary “evil” that put a cap on other “evils”, like adultery (oh the horror). Or so they say.

Times have evolved though, and I go by a different school of thought (schools of thought where it’s much more difficult to get to the bad place and stay there if your intentions are good). I cannot help you out of legal issues should something happen, but I have faith that doing what you consider to be a favor won’t be eternally punished.

So you’re only a net positive if you murder more than 1 murderer. Because if you murder a murderer then you become a murderer and we’re net 0 on murderers. But the more murderers you murder, the more negative that murder number becomes.

You know they say “2 wrongs don’t make a right” – yes – but maybe a dozen wrongs could.

Murdering murderers makes one a murderer. If one is going to ignore any context and mitigating factors, no, murdering murderers does not result in net good.

E.g., people who have killed in self defense have been tagged as murderers. Murdering them is not at all a good thing (in my moral framework, at least).

E.g. #2, murdering one person for Reasons does not necessarily mean a murderer is going to murder again. So murdering them adds to the overall murder tally without necessarily preventing any additional murders.

There has to be some element of preventing future murders, not just retribution of past murders, for this to even be a debate, IMO. And then there’s the bar of simply locking them up being insufficient to prevent them murdering in the future.

If you murder someone who’s about to commit murder, wouldn’t it be safe to say you just save a life?

no? because not every situation is black and white. I can’t just kill someone because they killed another human being. they could have a lot of reasons for killing someone, killing them doesn’t help anything.

Does that include other people who only murder murderers? And yourself?

Ah the old Schrodingers Dexter X The Good Place Crossover Episode Gambit, a decent argument. However I think it can be disproven through the axioms suggested through Zenos Jurrasic Park III X Terminator Clause.

If there’s a ‘Good Place’, then there’s one rule of ten that ALMOST EVERYONE ignores. Kings, popes, game hunters and every ‘Christian soldier’ pretends it’s complicated. It’s a very simple rule, with 4 words using only 16 letters. A 5-year-old can understand it. There’s no escape clause. Ignore it and you’ll not get there.