But revenge, in turn, is about counterfactually preventing the deed you want to get revenge for. Although revenge does not “undo” that (past) deed, agents that act as if it did are victims of less wrongdoing (under plausible models of human incentive structures).
Disclaimer: Not trying to voice an opinion about this particular person, his killing, or the impact thereof, just making a general point about the decision-theoretics of revenge.
Killing bin Laden was not about strategy. Killing bin Laden was about revenge.
Also about winning elections.
How confident are you about this? The morale boost seems to be a significant strategic benefit, from what little I see.
Why can’t it be about both?
But revenge, in turn, is about counterfactually preventing the deed you want to get revenge for. Although revenge does not “undo” that (past) deed, agents that act as if it did are victims of less wrongdoing (under plausible models of human incentive structures).
Disclaimer: Not trying to voice an opinion about this particular person, his killing, or the impact thereof, just making a general point about the decision-theoretics of revenge.