Final answer:
Spender believes that being a good killer is justified if it leads to a decrease in overall murders, despite the potential cost of innocent lives. This questionable moral standpoint provides insight into his deranged character and hints at a complex backstory that may explain his rationale for killing.
Step-by-step explanation:
Spender's justification for being a good killer lies in the logic that killing can have a utilitarian benefit by potentially reducing the overall number of murders. He argues that while it may lead to the death of innocents on occasion, this is a sacrifice that must be weighed against a possible greater good. This is a complex moral dilemma that is often debated in the context of capital punishment, and whether or not it acts as an effective deterrent against crime.
In his claim, Spender touches upon deep ethical questions regarding the value of human life and the justification of taking it under the guise of a greater benefit to society. His position shadowcasts the grim reality where victims' terror and the emotional gravity of killing are overshadowed by a cold, calculated approach to justice.
From a literary standpoint, Spender's perspective is gripping because it confronts the reader with challenging moral questions. It probes the character development, providing insight into why the killer is deranged and evaluates whether their backstory is compelling enough to justify their actions. This contributes to crafting a narrative where the weapon is not only a physical tool but also an extension of the killer's psyche, creative and fitting to their character.