Wow people are still responding all these years later?

I think in the original paradox the idea is that you can inflict varying degrees of pain in the process of wrongly killing someone -- you could painlessly kill someone with an overdose or morphine, say, as in euthanasia, or you could, I dunno, slowly burn off one bit of their body at a time with periods for recovery in between to prolong the agony. And the initial premise of the problematic syllogism that's meant to be generally accepted is that the latter is worse than the former, so between those two options you ought to choose the former as it's less bad, i.e. better. You shouldn't murder, but if for some reason you're going to end up murdering anyway, it's better if you make it painless ("gentle") than painful ("brutal"?).

If you murder, you ought to murder gently.
You cannot murder gently
Therefore, you ought not murder

This is actually an interesting exploration of the logic of the original paradox and of my proposed solution.

Setting aside the problems with the argument that it's not possible to murder gently, let's just accept for the sake of argument that that is true. Let's also accept that "ought implies can", that you tacitly rely on here to get from "you cannot murder gently" to the tacit "you oughtn't murder gently". The way the original paradoxical interpretation would have it, the logical thing to conclude would then be that you don't murder. Not "oughtn't", but "don't".

From premises that
M -> ought(M ^ G) = "if you murder, you ought to murder gently"
for all x, ought(x) -> can(x) = "you ought to do something only if you can"
~can(M ^ G) = "you cannot murder gently"
it follows from a string of modi tollentes that ~M = "you do not murder"

But now take my alternate interpretation, or encoding, plus the other premises conceded above.

From premises that
ought(M -> (M ^ G)) = "if you murder, you ought to murder gently"
for all x, ought(x) -> can(x) = "you ought to do something only if you can"
~can(M ^ G) = "you cannot murder gently"
it follows from a string of modi tollentes that ought(~M) = "you ought to not murder"

Which I hope we'll all agree is a much more intuitive kind of conclusion to take away.

My hunch is temporal logic is in order.
There's also something weird going between necessary and obligatory.