Help explain this argument to me.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

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…

2

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.

3

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

4

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.”