How Is Killing Someone Who Denies Free Will Murder?

Let us say that society is composed of people who are expected to be responsible for their actions. People are elevated above the status of robots, machines, computers, and tools such that they are expected to have free will.

In turn, say someone denies free will such that someone expects rights without responsibilities. The value of someone’s existence is comparison to robots, machines, computers, and tools is moot beyond anthropocentric prejudice.

A denier is shot on the basis of provocation.

That is if the denier is correct, then there is no difference between shooting a computer versus shooting the denier. Tolerating the denier’s continued existence would yield frustration since fellow citizens would be obligated to assume the risk of a free will denier getting away with crime. Alternatively, society could advocate a pragmatic, functionalist, utilitarian evaluation of crime in saying people’s rights are subject to convenience, but that’s prejudiced as well.

Murder involves malice intent, but it is impossible to maliciously intend the destruction of non-free willing agents.

Therefore, how is the death of the free will denier murder?

In a society of Free Will, it is not murder to murder somebody.

But neither is it murder when all those who loved and cared for the dead, come to avenge their dead. Revenge is also a part of the equation.

Modern justice is a system of revenge management.

I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. Murder is what it is because of malicious intent. One person is not superior of another.

The problem is free will deniers are denying the property by which personhood is defined. Therefore, it begs the question over how they can be treated maliciously.

Jimi Hendrix had no malice intent regarding the guitars he sometimes destroyed, while rioters often have malice intent towards the property they destroy.

This is false. People are superior in the sense of being cared for by society at large, popularity. If a socially popular person is killed, murdered, then the society at large will call out for revenge and enact mob justice. While the murder of a homeless person is not cared for, and swept under the rug. Nobody really cares if an unpopular person dies or is murdered. Superiority in this sense of justice, in a Free Will Society, is derived straight from popularity and social standing. The more popular you are, the more others will call out for revenge.

In most Western societies it is against the law to kill people for what they believe or do not believe. You can only kill people for what they do. And given the magnitude of killing someone, they have to have killed someone else.

Hence, killing someone for disagreeing with you is murder.

That doesn’t follow. We have no reason to suspect that computers are experiencers. That they are alive and this life would stop if they were destroyed. Further killing someone generally affects the people who love them.

If people deny free will, then people’s self-control is questionable such that others’ experience is jeopardized.

Why should people have the right to experience without the responsibility of respecting others’ experience?

Why should people have the right to experience…? what? What does not respecting someone else’s experience have to do with the death penalty?

There are plenty of issues where people do not respect the experience of other people and think they are wrong. There is no precedent for killing people because of this. And it would cut both ways. I don’t think your argument is making the slightest bit of sense.
Also this post of mine…