I know there's a difference, and I've thought about that

But to me it's purely numerical

A utilitarian sees added moral value in numbers, I don't

If you kill one person that's life, if you kill hundreds that's a death sentence

In this instance it might just depend on the person. I mean to you or me, we'd see the baby's death as a bad thing. To the parent, it's so much more devastating

I think if you murder 100 people, and you deserve death for that, then you should also deserve that for only murdering 1 person.

No I don't believe in death for killing one person as that's an eye for an eye territory which is morally questionable

That's the utilitarian morality

My morality is anti-utilitarian

Each individual counts

Surely it'd be better to make that person spend the rest of their life living with the consequences of their actions?

Death is too easy an escape

Well, that's how we've handled it so far

I see it more like this:

A serial killer is more likely to kill again, and that's why it makes pragmatic sense to kill him

True

But from a purely moralistic standpoint, there's no difference in my opinion

And since the world isn't purely moralistic, and utility matters, anti-utilitarian views are irrelevant.

Well, no I think it's not about utility

Or rather

I don't think it should be

I think it should be about pragmatism instead

Well, people shouldn't starve, but they do.

Morality and pragmatism, not uility

I see what you're saying, a murderer can only become a serial killer by killing again but if the murderer is in prison for life then only a murderer not caught early enough can become a serial killer

That's the pragmatic side of the argument, yes

The only difference between the two is how quickly justice is brought down

Morally speaking, I'd either kill both, or none, unless I have a pragmatic reason to differ

For example I'd kill Hitler, but not a one-time murderer, because I think pragmatism is important

I'd kill neither, and extract forced labour from them to cover expenses of imprisonment and turn a profit.

bruh haha

Or that, why not

I see nothing wrong with it

Serial killers tend not to be affected by their actions so killing them is better then letting them live as they don't regret what they did. But a single murderer is more likely to regret his one murder so life is justified

@Goddess Tyche that is also a reasonable response

Why is regret important?

Because it adds punishment

It's worse to live with what you've done then be absolved of it by death

But we can't really tell if people regret what they did or not

We can be fooled easily

True but statistically single murderers are more likely to feel regret then serial killers because of a phycological difference