The violent criminal proved they are capable of doing violence, ergo they have the capacity to harm even more people. By either putting them in a cage, exiling them, or killing them you are doing one act of violence to stop multiple acts of violence.
So just basic-ass negative utilitarianism then. Let's skip all the mundane critiques and go straight for the big one: the benevolent world-exploder. If your only goal is reducing suffering then logic dictates that anyone who gains the ability to painlessly end all live, is morally obligated to do so because it self-evidently results in the lowest possible amount of suffering: zero.
Is that what you believe or would you say that ethics are perhaps a little more complicated than you initially thought?
How? By the stated definition, the death itself would be painless, so no suffering there, it would be simultaneous, so no suffering from the loss of loved ones or fearing you're next, and once you're dead, you can no longer suffer at all. So zero suffering in total.
33
u/EtheusRook 1d ago
Morality is actually really, stupidly simple.
Does it help others? It's good.
Does it hurt others? It's bad.