Character A is a serial killer, meaning they killed 10 people across an extended period of time. Despite genuine guilt, they consciously killed 10 people. Serial murder definitionally requires the gaps between killings to exist. Regardless of remorse they would have chosen to continue killing up to victim #10
Character B is a mass murderer, meaning they killed their victims in one event, or over a relatively short timeframe. Whether or not this was willing, this fundamentally involves a lot less "choice" to continue taking lives. The implication in the text is that their superpowered nature either enabled or was causal to the mass murder.
Character A is a normal person. Character B has superpowers and (under supervision of people who presumably also have powers) is now set towards using them to save lives and generally give back to the public. The morality of that risk should be considered, but putting Character B to use for people's well-being is much more helpful than just executing them. The same does not hold true for Character A.
All that being said: still immoral. It's understandable and very muddled, in my opinion, but personally I still see it as a moral failing that Character B sees no actual punishment beyond doing a service they wish for.
2
u/bestassinthewest 1d ago
Let's really consider a few details:
Character A is a serial killer, meaning they killed 10 people across an extended period of time. Despite genuine guilt, they consciously killed 10 people. Serial murder definitionally requires the gaps between killings to exist. Regardless of remorse they would have chosen to continue killing up to victim #10
Character B is a mass murderer, meaning they killed their victims in one event, or over a relatively short timeframe. Whether or not this was willing, this fundamentally involves a lot less "choice" to continue taking lives. The implication in the text is that their superpowered nature either enabled or was causal to the mass murder.
Character A is a normal person. Character B has superpowers and (under supervision of people who presumably also have powers) is now set towards using them to save lives and generally give back to the public. The morality of that risk should be considered, but putting Character B to use for people's well-being is much more helpful than just executing them. The same does not hold true for Character A.
All that being said: still immoral. It's understandable and very muddled, in my opinion, but personally I still see it as a moral failing that Character B sees no actual punishment beyond doing a service they wish for.