Scoundrel on Nostr: No, it's kind of the opposite. If the murder would prefer that the person didn't ...
No, it's kind of the opposite. If the murder would prefer that the person didn't exist at all, and if the murder would prefer never to have been given the opportunity to kill someone, then it's not a rights violation.
It's only a rights violation if the murderer enjoys the experience itself, or picks the persons pocket, or if the murderer is violating a separate right in the process. (Such as if the murderer needed the victim to take some specific course of action in order to be able to kill them.)
Rights are derived from the benefits that depend on the right-holder. If the benefit can exist without a particular person, then the benefit isn't related to any right of that person.
It's only a rights violation if the murderer enjoys the experience itself, or picks the persons pocket, or if the murderer is violating a separate right in the process. (Such as if the murderer needed the victim to take some specific course of action in order to be able to kill them.)
Rights are derived from the benefits that depend on the right-holder. If the benefit can exist without a particular person, then the benefit isn't related to any right of that person.