Help explain this argument to me.

And now, for something really pointless.

In some movies and TV shows character A kills character B. Character C tracks down A, and before getting revenge, character D steps in and says, “Do do it, killing A won’t bring B back to life.”

Uhm…uhm…neither will letting A live. Neither will sending A to prison. In fact, short of a miracle, nothing will bring B back to life. So I don’t get the argument.

Now if C has a choice, and by letting A live, B will come back to life, I could understand, but since that isn’t the case…

Killing in cold blood is generally conisdered evil and illegal. You can’t bring the original victim back, so you won’t really gain anything by taking revenge. You risk incarceration/execution/eternal damnation, so it’s not really cost/benefit effective.

So it’s another way of saying, “You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.”?
I can see that I guess.

If character C has any brains, s/he knows that killing A won’t bring B back to life. So D’s statement ("…it won’t bring B back to life…") is not a very good argument. D should say, “After you kill A, you’ll still feel anger and sorrow, and on top of that, you’ll go to prison.”