Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

i think it is realistic that a vegan would really not kill the puppy for a million.

or others with value codes that are not black and white. it is a very grey world we live in.

i recognise that to be morally consistent i really should kill the puppy since i wear leather shoes. but, in reality i probably would not kill the puppy, due to being a flawed and inconsistent conflicted sentimental individual.
 
[MENTION=3255]Sali[/MENTION] killing a puppy for a million might be an acceptable trade to one person because they could make certain dreams of theirs come true that require having money to realise. but for another person, maybe slaying puppies for fun is a dream come true for them, something that they want to do in life, and so the life of the puppy is subjectively an acceptable ethical trade for that person. are these trades then, subjectively equal?
 
uberrogo said:
I may be inclined to believe you since I have a photo of you with leather shoes. I think you paid someone much less than a million to kill that animal.
Click to expand...
Oh Jesus Christ you are ever so clever.
I feel like I said this already.... fake stuff.

Besides, I don't think it's wrong to consume an animal. Animals consume one another for survival.
Humans are animals.

The problem is exploitation and excess for the sake of self-gratification.
Does that make sense to you??
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Sali said:
From who's perspective?
Click to expand...

well, i guess that's what i'm getting at. does it matter? is one subjective perspective more relevant to this question of ethical superiority than another, if subjective ethics is the criteria by which we are judging these things? maybe i'm getting caught up in knots, but it just seems like by this standard, killing the puppy for money is no different from killing the puppy for fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
invisible said:
well, i guess that's what i'm getting at. does it matter? is one subjective perspective more relevant to this question of ethical superiority than another, if subjective ethics is the criteria by which we are judging these things? maybe i'm getting caught up in knots, but it just seems like by this standard, killing the puppy for money is no different from killing the puppy for fun.
Click to expand...

From my perspective it is a lot different,
from acd's perspective it is no different,
from the puppies perspective it is no different.

Aside from that if I were to kill an animal I would do it in a very efficient, and relatively painless way while someone desiring to harm the puppy would likely do it in a cruel and drawn out way.
 
Sali said:
From my perspective it is a lot different,
from acd's perspective it is no different,
from the puppies perspective it is no different.

Aside from that if I were to kill an animal I would do it in a very efficient, and relatively painless way while someone desiring to harm the puppy would likely do it in a cruel and drawn out way.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you'd kill it painlessly... and then spend your million on video games and what other materialistic junk you could survive without..

And that's what irks me in this thread.

Of course the OP is trying to be funny and absurd, but that is how it's done: We exploit things and destroy them to satisfy materialistic urges..
And then we wonder why the world is so full of corruption and violence.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
Well, at least you'd kill it painlessly... and then spend your million on video games and what other worthless junk you could survive without..
Click to expand...

Actually I wouldn't spend the money at all, I'd put it in stocks with medianly yielding dividends and live off the compound interest for the rest of my life.
 
Sali said:
Actually I wouldn't spend the money at all, I'd put it in stocks with medianly yielding dividends and live off the compound interest for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...
I doubt you'd not blow any of it on worthless shit.
And anyway, who cares?
Did you read the rest of my last post?
 
acd said:
Well, at least you'd kill it painlessly... and then spend your million on video games and what other materialistic junk you could survive without..
Click to expand...

What? When did he say that? Just because you have a lot of money doesnt mean you have to spend it unwisely. But so what if he did buy video games, you have video games. Although most people cannot survive without Skyrim.
 
acd said:
I doubt you'd not blow any of it on worthless shit.
And anyway, who cares?
Did you read the rest of my last post?
Click to expand...

The rest of your post wasn't there at the point I responded to it, I see your point but I don't agree that gaining money is always about materialism.
 
I am so mad I could make a strongly worded rap video right now.
 
acd said:
Well, at least you'd kill it painlessly... and then spend your million on video games and what other materialistic junk you could survive without..

And that's what irks me in this thread.

Of course the OP is trying to be funny and absurd, but that is how it's done: We exploit things and destroy them to satisfy materialistic urges..
And then we wonder why the world is so full of corruption and violence.
Click to expand...


If it makes you feel any better, nobody gains or loses anything when all is said and done; we all leave this world the same way as we entered, that is with an intolerable sorrow.
 
Matt3737 said:
If it makes you feel any better, nobody gains or loses anything when all is said and done; we all leave this world the same way as we entered, that is with an intolerable sorrow.
Click to expand...

if its all the same might as well rape, pillage, and plunder then! this certainly does make me feel better! yeehaw, doom n gloom all the way!
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
invisible said:
if its all the same might as well rape, pillage, and plunder then! this certainly does make me feel better! yeehaw, doom n gloom all the way!
Click to expand...

Just because you can say such and such makes you feel better and that you're justified in doing so, doesn't mean I believe you. I believe you do whatever feels right to you and I can accept that fact, but I won't necessarily take your word as such.
 
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]
Sali said:
From my perspective it is a lot different,
from acd's perspective it is no different,
from the puppies perspective it is no different.

Aside from that if I were to kill an animal I would do it in a very efficient, and relatively painless way while someone desiring to harm the puppy would likely do it in a cruel and drawn out way.
Click to expand...

i have gotten confused and just want to go back to original question that whether one thing is better than another depends on own subjective code of ethics,

hypothetical person 1 subjectively posits that killing puppy painlessly is a fair exchange for a million dollars.

hypothetical person 2 subjectively posits that killing puppy painfully is a fair exchange for delight.

so if the rightness of what happens to puppy is determined externally by a subjective value set, why is the exchange posited by person 1 more ethically correct than that posited by person 2? is person 1's subjective ethics arbitrarily more valuable than person 2's, or is there some external ethical value being used to judge this matter, such as do unto others for example?[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top