Why "let live?"

[Narfo]

Here?s something that?s been bugging me for awhile now?
I have a habit of imagining what I?d do or say if I was in the presence of a villain, you know, those bastards you see and read about in movies, TV shows, books, and so on. Among these scenarios is a conversation that goes, vaguely, like this?

Villain: I?m going to kill (person who?s done nothing and isn?t a threat)
Me: No, don?t!
Villain: Why not?
Me: Because you don?t have a reason to kill them!
Villain: What reason is there to let them live?

Now, you don?t have to point out the insanity of the last line, I?m well aware of it. But I couldn?t help but think: what would be my answer to that last line (other than killing the insane, murderous fucker)?
Honestly, the best I could come up with is: Because they?re already alive.
Yeah, it doesn?t really carry much weight, does it?

So now I pose the challenge to you: if you had the above dialogue with a villain, what would your answer to the last line be?

Edit: I am not sharing a story, I am posing a philosophical question. The text above was to give context as to why I'm posing the question and to the question itself.

 

[briankoontz]

Your question isn't serious, because the proposed situation lacks all context.

Why are you having the conversation with the "villain" in the first place?

What's your role in the situation? If you're having a basic face-to-face with the villain that typically implies that you're a minion of the villain and already support the proposed killing - if it's already established that you oppose the villain then you're a police officer or other kind of protagonist so there's no reason to talk at all - as an established villain this person has already committed plenty of past crimes, so a police officer can just arrest him or have a violent confrontation if he resists arrest or if you're a random citizen you can call the police to have them come and produce this outcome.

If the police are in league with the villain, as is the case with the villainous Rupert Murdoch for example, then you have to decide whether or not you're willing to commit a crime by stopping him. Rupert Murdoch could be stopped by either kidnapping and restraining him so that he can't make further media decisions, by murdering him, or perhaps through more creative methods. Even though you're the protagonist that doesn't imply that the police are - the police are tools of a certain power-serving interpretation of the law, for better or (often) for worse.

In real life a normal citizen can't have the kind of conversation you propose with a villain because villains, just like Rupert Murdoch, have already decided that what they are doing is right and have better things to do with their time than have pointless conversations with muggles. There's a 0% chance that Rupert Murdoch can be reasoned with into seeing the error of his ways. For people whose goal is power, the only error is doing things that result in a reduction of their power.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Simply put writers need a quick way to establish the villain. Killing off characters is fast, easy and wraps up possible loose ends.

 

[sageoftruth]

Well, for one thing, killing the person puts you on Darwin's shit list. According to a book I read on morality and people's perceptions of it, it's possible people hate villains and love heroes because it favors natural selection. As an individual, being of a villainous disposition doesn't do too much to hurt one's chances of successfully reproducing, but people have tended to exist as groups, rather than as individuals, and the groups with the fewest villains in them tended to be best at surviving, thanks to teamwork, and as a result, back in the stone age, the strong groups thrived and the weak groups were crushed by the strong ones.

 

[shootthebandit]

"Because If you kill them I will avenge their death." That way if their life is really worthless he is still valuing their live over his

 

[Little Woodsman]

Here?s something that?s been bugging me for awhile now?
I have a habit of imagining what I?d do or say if I was in the presence of a villain, you know, those bastards you see and read about in movies, TV shows, books, and so on. Among these scenarios is a conversation that goes, vaguely, like this?

Villain: I?m going to kill (person who?s done nothing and isn?t a threat)
Me: No, don?t!
Villain: Why not?
Me: Because you don?t have a reason to kill them!
Villain: What reason is there to let them live?

Now, you don?t have to point out the insanity of the last line, I?m well aware of it. But I couldn?t help but think: what would be my answer to that last line (other than killing the insane, murderous fucker)?
Honestly, the best I could come up with is: Because they?re already alive.
Yeah, it doesn?t really carry much weight, does it?

So now I pose the challenge to you: if you had the above dialogue with a villain, what would your answer to the last line be?

Edit: I am not sharing a story, I am posing a philosophical question. The text above was to give context as to why I'm posing the question and to the question itself.

"Because we as a society have made a collective decision that those who take the life of another will face very severe punishments. This.. all religious and moral argument aside ...is based on the nearly universal desire of people to *not* be *murdered*. Therefore in order to minimize the chances of being murdered we have collectively established this system, the full force of which will be faced by you should you kill said individual. You may argue against how right or wrong this is, but as long as our society exists with it's current rules killing said individual is just a *bad* *idea*."

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Well there's always this:

Alternatively asking them why they believe they have the authority to choose who lives and who dies, or else just shoot them right in the face, because conversations with villains are for unarmed people.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

Well I'd probably say something along the lines of; The more people you kill, the more vengeful lovde ones hellbent on placing you on your shitlist you get, and remember, there's always a bigger fish.

 

[Lilani]

Now, you don?t have to point out the insanity of the last line, I?m well aware of it. But I couldn?t help but think: what would be my answer to that last line (other than killing the insane, murderous fucker)?
Honestly, the best I could come up with is: Because they?re already alive.
Yeah, it doesn?t really carry much weight, does it?

Why does it not carry much weight? Is the life of someone who isn't yourself really so meaningless to you?

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

"Your manicure appointment is in 10 minutes, and the blood stains will cost $10 extra"

/thread

Though if I was serious, I'd probably say that "this sort of work is beneath you, let the goons handle it and proceed with more important business".

Then, I hand the guy about to be killed something as a weapon, or I knock out the goon when his back is turned.

 

[Olas]

"It's a waste of a bullet."

Alternatively:

"You'll get blood everywhere."

Alternatively:

"He's your long lost brother"

Alternatively:

"He knows where the treasure is buried"

Alternatively:

"We can enslave him instead"

Alternatively:

"Because you'll go to hell"

Alternatively:

"Rationally, if we always started from the premise that any action SHOULD be taken unless we can find a compelling reason not to we'd constantly be trapped in a state of decision over whether to do random trivial things like touching your nose or reciting the Star Spangled Banner instead of focusing on things that are important. Thus it only makes sense to not take actions unless a reason to do so presents itself first. Since there's no reason to kill this man we should not even consider whether to do it, much less actually do it.

Alternatively:

Karma's a *****.

Alternatively:

"Because I fucking SAID SO, that's why. Have you forgotten who's in charge here? If you question my orders one more time it'll be YOUR ass that's begging for his life.

Alternatively:

"His hand is on a dead man's switch you fucking moron, you want to get us all killed?"

Alternatively:

"Wasn't it your new year's resolution not to kill anyone? For Christ's sake it's barely February"

Alternatively:

Spoiler: List from Breaking Bad

 

[Gatx]

Now, you don?t have to point out the insanity of the last line, I?m well aware of it. But I couldn?t help but think: what would be my answer to that last line (other than killing the insane, murderous fucker)?
Honestly, the best I could come up with is: Because they?re already alive.
Yeah, it doesn?t really carry much weight, does it?

Why does it not carry much weight? Is the life of someone who isn't yourself really so meaningless to you?

I can kind of see where this is going. While the villain's line seems like a strong way to establish the villain as a ruthless killer with questionable sanity, it's harder to think of a retort from the hero that has both an impact to the villain and the audience.

I think usually in fiction the hero just says "You're insane" or something and a fight ensues.

 

[michael87cn]

Nah, nah. See, you're missing the trick here. When the villain asks why shouldn't he kill the innocent victim, the hero asks why he can't kill the villain. What the villain does is not the heroes' fault. But by proving he is dangerous, he is giving the hero the right to destroy him without mercy. Let him go, and the hero has a reason to let him live.

Bam!

 

[Something Amyss]

Why are you having the conversation with the "villain" in the first place?

Barring better understanding, I agree with this. As such, I'm going to go with:

"Because cleanup's so much work. God's sake, man/woman, it took me months to get minion out of my carpet last time!"

I'm a bad motivational speaker.

 

[Asita]

The question requires additional context to frame the villain's role and exposure. That's actually a critically important detail in determining the response. The arguments that Commodus would understand or even agree with are very different from the ones the Joker would agree with, Iago requires much finer manipulations than either, Prince Humperdink has different priorities, and then of course trying to convince the Joker is another kettle of fish entirely...really, it largely depends on how public the villain is with his/her villainy, where their priorities lie, how much of a coward they are...

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

"Who are you to hold his/her life in your hands?"
That would be my response.
And they'd probably come back with "Then what makes *you* the paradigm of right and wrong?"
Hey, it may not be the best response, as I await the onslaught on philosophers on this site to get all up on my case about what right and wrong is and who decides and blah blah bleh blah, but it's what I'd say.