Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

[the]

Eliminates them from the gene pool.

if only you were the person I asked that question to...

 

[sprinkles]

if only you were the person I asked that question to...

If only you were vacuum packed and flash frozen...

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

New question:
would you say to all your friends on a forum you would kill a puppy for $1,000,000, when in real life you are not going to get the chance to get $1,000,000 no matter what you do?

 

[sprinkles]

New question:
would you say to all your friends on a forum you would kill a puppy for $1,000,000, when in real life you are not going to get the chance to get $1,000,000 no matter what you do?

If it's not a lie or a joke then I don't see that it's a different question, since it's already the case that there's almost no chance of this happening.

 

[SealHammer]

New question:
would you say to all your friends on a forum you would kill a puppy for $1,000,000, when in real life you are not going to get the chance to get $1,000,000 no matter what you do?

This hypothetical manages to sound less relevant to reality than the one that this thread is based around.

 

[sprinkles]

Also I'd argue that dog babies are worth more than human babies.

Some puppies cost hundreds of dollars or more. Babies are free, and some people pay that much to kill their own.

Dog babies are almost always cute. Human babies are really grody.

Some places you can eat dogs. Where do people eat babies?

What makes more sense to have if you get trapped under rubble in the cold for days - a dog baby or a human baby? Dog babies are furry and you can cuddle it to keep warm and it will be happy as long as you're near it, and you can actually eat it when it dies. The human baby would cry, stink, be a nuisance, suck the life out of you, and people would look at you funny to say the least if you ate it when it died.

 

[Hazard]

Also I'd argue that dog babies are worth more than human babies.

Some puppies cost hundreds of dollars or more. Babies are free, and some people pay that much to kill their own.

Dog babies are almost always cute. Human babies are really grody.

Some places you can eat dogs. Where do people eat babies?

What makes more sense to have if you get trapped under rubble in the cold for days - a dog baby or a human baby? Dog babies are furry and you can cuddle it to keep warm and it will be happy as long as you're near it, and you can actually eat it when it dies. The human baby would cry, stink, be a nuisance, suck the life out of you, and people would look at you funny to say the least if you ate it when it died.

I agree that a lot of human beings are scum of the earth. A great amount of people are evil and the majority are incredibly selfish. I have yet to study any type of philosophy though so I can't really say that my life is of any value besides as a benefit to others. There is no purpose unless I can use my life to make something outside of myself better and hope that I'll influence a few good people. On the other hand I don't agree that a vile mutt is more important than a human life. Human life is meant to be cherished and the life of a dog has often been regarded as worthless. "That is a dog of a man." is a negative term. Also the fact that we eat dogs implies that they are of less value than humans and the fact that we kill babies for a price just goes to show how evil we are as a species rather than that human life is less important than an animal's. If I thought this was just a joke I'd laugh it off but a joke is a very serious thing.

 

[sprinkles]

I agree that a lot of human beings are scum of the earth. A great amount of people are evil and the majority are incredibly selfish. I have yet to study any type of philosophy though so I can't really say that my life is of any value besides as a benefit to others. There is no purpose unless I can use my life to make something outside of myself better and hope that I'll influence a few good people. On the other hand I don't agree that a vile mutt is more important than a human life. Human life is meant to be cherished and the life of a dog has often been regarded as worthless. "That is a dog of a man." is a negative term. Also the fact that we eat dogs implies that they are of less value than humans and the fact that we kill babies for price just goes to show how evil we are as a species rather than that human life is less important than an animal's. If I thought this was just a joke I'd laugh it off but a joke is a very serious thing.

I didn't say "more important". I said "worth more".

It clearly is on a pragmatic level. You're getting into sentimental values. One is not more important than the other if we ditch the idea that you can't eat babies or make hats out of them in a pinch.

I don't even have a problem with killing puppies either. I have a problem with killing them for money - mostly because somebody would have to be offering that money and you'd be sanctioning a senseless killing by taking it, even if you used that money for good. I mean why in the heck is somebody paying you that much to kill a puppy? They could just as easily kill it themselves and keep their own money. They're getting some really weird jollies by doing this and you'd be helping them do it.

 

[Hazard]

I didn't say "more important". I said "worth more".

It clearly is on a pragmatic level. You're getting into sentimental values. One is not more important than the other if we ditch the idea that you can't eat babies or make hats out of them in a pinch.

I don't even have a problem with killing puppies either. I have a problem with killing them for money - mostly because somebody would have to be offering that money and you'd be sanctioning a senseless killing by taking it, even if you used that money for good. I mean why in the heck is somebody paying you that much to kill a puppy? They could just as easily kill it themselves and keep their own money. They're getting some really weird jollies by doing this and you'd be helping them do it.

You're thinking too much into it, my friend. Which is a good thing. I like that about you. You're like my dad in that way. I side with the belief that the means justify the ends so I'd have to disagree that killing even one human being to save 100 would be immoral. It's basically a choice of saving one life over 100. Also a human life can contribute more than the life of a dog can to society so objectively speaking a human life is worth more.

 

[sprinkles]

You're thinking too much into it, my friend. Which is a good thing. I like that about you. You're like my dad in that way. I side with the belief that the means justify the ends so I'd have to disagree that killing even one human being to save 100 would be immoral. It's basically a choice of saving one life over 100.

I think you can only make this comparison if the puppy has its paw on a bomb detonator and is making demands.

This isn't even comparable to say, killing a person before they kill other people, or even torturing somebody to save the world. The puppy is not likely linked to any problems, killing it is just as immoral as killing the person instead and taking their money. You've taken a life that has nothing to do with the problem you'd try to fix with the money.

 

[Hazard]

I think you can only make this comparison if the puppy has its paw on a bomb detonator and is making demands.

This isn't even comparable to say, killing a person before they kill other people, or even torturing somebody to save the world. The puppy is not likely linked to any problems, killing it is just as immoral as killing the person instead and taking their money. You've taken a life that has nothing to do with the problem you'd try to fix with the money.

My morality is somewhat skewed right now because I believe the ends justify the means. Maybe you can help me in this dilemma. In essence even though you're killing someone that has no involvement it really is a choice between saving one life over 100 because even though the one life isn't involved, you could save 100 lives by killing one whereas if you let the person go it would be killing 100 people. Basically it really is a choice between saving 100 over one even though there's a murder involved. In the ends even though there's an immoral action involved it's still right to view it from this perspective.

As for why that is the truth, it's because of this If a person on the beach sees a person is drowning and doesn't save them even though they're an Olympic swimmer then this is murder. If you're capable of saving someone and don't then you might as well have killed them. Same thing goes for someone with a billion dollars. You could save millions of lives by giving your money away and living in a mansion with just a million dollars left but if you don't you might as well be killing them all because you were perfectly capable of helping them.

Give me every reason why you disagree.

 

[sprinkles]

My morality is somewhat skewed right now because I believe the ends justify the means. Maybe you can help me in this dilemma. In essence even though you're killing someone that has no involvement it really is a choice between saving one life over 100 because even though the one life isn't involved, you could save 100 lives by killing one whereas if you let the person go it would be killing 100 people. Basically it really is a choice between saving 100 over one even though there's a murder involved. In the ends even though there's an immoral action involved it's still right to view it from this perspective.

As for why that is the truth, it's because of this If a person on the beach sees a person is drowning and doesn't save them even though they're an Olympic swimmer then this is murder. If you're capable of saving someone and don't then you might as well have killed them. Same thing goes for someone with a billion dollars. You could save millions of lives by giving your money away and living in a mansion with just a million dollars left but if you don't you might as well be killing them all because you were perfectly capable of helping them.

Give me every reason why you disagree.

I don't disagree with those points. They are different points.

There are lines which are not socially acceptable to cross with this. A couple examples are:
Culling the population to reduce hunger and poverty. Kill half of people, maybe you save the other half.
Making your millions by being a paid assassin, bank robber, selling people into slavery, and so forth.

Saying the ends justify the means and taking it as carte blanche gives you power to do all kinds of evil in the name of good. Because of the sliding scale of morality which people generally have, you could justify almost any act with this if you frame it up right.

Also "killing one to save a hundred" is not usually said about an uninvolved person. The one person is almost never just a random person that happens to be useful to kill somehow. In this scenario the one is practically always related somehow in such a way that the very act of killing them in itself interdicts the problem and saves a hundred people. There is no "kill them and take the money and save people some time down the road" with this. It's taking the scenario way beyond its usual context.

 

[Hazard]

I don't disagree with those points. They are different points.

There are lines which are not socially acceptable to cross with this. A couple examples are:
Culling the population to reduce hunger and poverty. Kill half of people, maybe you save the other half.
Making your millions by being a paid assassin, bank robber, selling people into slavery, and so forth.

Saying the ends justify the means and taking it as carte blanche gives you power to do all kinds of evil in the name of good. Because of the sliding scale of morality which people generally have, you could justify almost any act with this if you frame it up right.

Also "killing one to save a hundred" is not usually said about an uninvolved person. The one person is almost never just a random person that happens to be useful to kill somehow. In this scenario the one is practically always related somehow in such a way that the very act of killing them in itself interdicts the problem and saves a hundred people. There is no "kill them and take the money and save people some time down the road" with this. It's taking the scenario way beyond its usual context.

Hmm... just because it's not socially acceptable doesn't mean it's not right. People want to live, that why it's not acceptable. I can think of many things that are socially acceptable that are blatantly wrong.

 

[Radiantshadow]

My morality is somewhat skewed right now because I believe the ends justify the means. Maybe you can help me in this dilemma. In essence even though you're killing someone that has no involvement it really is a choice between saving one life over 100 because even though the one life isn't involved, you could save 100 lives by killing one whereas if you let the person go it would be killing 100 people. Basically it really is a choice between saving 100 over one even though there's a murder involved. In the ends even though there's an immoral action involved it's still right to view it from this perspective.

As for why that is the truth, it's because of this If a person on the beach sees a person is drowning and doesn't save them even though they're an Olympic swimmer then this is murder. If you're capable of saving someone and don't then you might as well have killed them. Same thing goes for someone with a billion dollars. You could save millions of lives by giving your money away and living in a mansion with just a million dollars left but if you don't you might as well be killing them all because you were perfectly capable of helping them.

Give me every reason why you disagree.

The utilitarian argument assumes each person
involved has equal value or merit, which
cannot be determined. The statistical
likelihood of doing "more good"
(as though good is a quantity) is
greater if one saves the 100,
but it is not a certainty.

In the case of giving away one's fortune,
it is also assumed that money itself is the problem,
instead of ongoing social and political
instabilities. Money in this case is
nothing more than a temporary bandage
and creates a Sisyphus situation.
Strictly speaking, the unconditional
provision of goods creates dependency.
As the saying goes, it is better to teach
a man to fish than to give him a fish.
Money helps, but it there's more to it.

Also, neutrality does not equate to murder;
kindness is a gift, not a responsibility.
Just because one could do something
does not mean they must.

 

[sprinkles]

Hmm... just because it's not socially acceptable doesn't mean it's not right. People want to live, that why it's not acceptable. I can think of many things that are socially acceptable that are blatantly wrong.

Then it's not socially acceptable in the proper sense.

By socially acceptable I mean prosocial relation. Not what Idiot Bob thinks is cool.

 

[Hazard]

The utilitarian argument assumes each person
involved has equal value or merit, which
cannot be determined. The statistical
likelihood of doing "more good"
(as though good is a quantity) is
greater if one saves the 100,
but it is not a certainty.

In the case of giving away one's fortune,
it is also assumed that money itself is the problem,
instead of ongoing social and political
instabilities. Money in this case is
nothing more than a temporary bandage
and creates a Sisyphus situation.
Strictly speaking, the unconditional
provision of goods creates dependency.
As the saying goes, it is better to teach
a man to fish than to give him a fish.
Money helps, but it there's more to it.

Also, neutrality does not equate to murder;
kindness is a gift, not a responsibility.
Just because one could do something
does not mean they must.

You write so eloquently. I understand that a murder's life that is rotting in a cage may be less important than a doctor's who contributes his skills to charity and those who can't afford professional help. I also understand that an elderly person's life would probably be of less importance than a new born baby's because of the amount of years each person would possibly be able to live given natural circumstances. So I agree with you on this.

I also agree that throwing money at someone doesn't help the situation any more than allowing a person to bleed would. But money can be used for more things then creating a situation where you're just giving fish instead of teaching a man to fish. For instance instead of giving food I could pay to give the people seeds and hire a framer and translator to teach them to do the work. It all amounts to how you spend your money so I can't really agree with this point. Money is what makes the world go 'round and you can do just about anything with it if you learn how to spend it in the best way possible.

Neutrality... hm. This is a valid point. So you would disagree that watching a toddler drown right in front of your face just two feet away and not doing anything to help him as he's screaming for your help and gargling through the cries makes you guilty in any way possible? I know most people would probably sentence the man to death. I kind of agree with you though.

 

[sprinkles]

The utilitarian argument assumes each person
involved has equal value or merit, which
cannot be determined. The statistical
likelihood of doing "more good"
(as though good is a quantity) is
greater if one saves the 100,
but it is not a certainty.

In the case of giving away one's fortune,
it is also assumed that money itself is the problem,
instead of ongoing social and political
instabilities. Money in this case is
nothing more than a temporary bandage
and creates a Sisyphus situation.
Strictly speaking, the unconditional
provision of goods creates dependency.
As the saying goes, it is better to teach
a man to fish than to give him a fish.
Money helps, but it there's more to it.

Also, neutrality does not equate to murder;
kindness is a gift, not a responsibility.
Just because one could do something
does not mean they must.

Yes. And on the murder thing, it's not murder if there's no malice involved.

Additionally nobody 'must' do anything. Everything is a balance of pros and cons, and evolved eusocial, presocial, and anti or asocial behaviors. Kindness isn't really a responsibility, or even a gift, it is a prosocial tendency which arises from altruism - a mysterious natural drive that is experienced by some (but clearly not all).

Outside of morality, one just feels it because environmental factors and possibly genetics have effectively conspired to cause one to feel it. This is the genesis of altruism if one does not believe in inherent morality or god.

 

[Radiantshadow]

I also agree that throwing money at someone doesn't help the situation any more than allowing a person to bleed would. But money can be used for more things than creating a situation where you're just giving fish instead of teaching a man to fish. For instance instead of giving food I could pay to give the people seeds and hire a framer and translator to teach them to do the work. It all amounts to how you spend your money so I can't really agree with this point. Money is what makes the world go 'round and you can do just about anything with it if you learn how to spend it in the best way possible.

I am not arguing that money has no utility value, I am arguing that
other factors can play a role in deciding
what is most moral in a situation.

Simply donating money says nothing about
how effectively it will be used, towards
what goals it will be applied, whether
those goals are constructive or destructive,
or, well, anything at all. So,
according to the bolded bit,
you actually agreed with me.

Neutrality... hm. This is a valid point. So you would disagree that watching a toddler drown right in front of your face just two feet away and not doing anything to help him as he's screaming for your help and gargling through the cries makes you guilty in any way possible? I know most people would probably sentence the man to death. I kind of agree with you though.

Your initial phrasing borders on ad hominem.

The presence of guilt does not determine moral validity,
and, again, it is impossible to evaluate the absolute worth
of a human being, so I could lean either way in your query.
Granted, the toddler is presumably unable to help itself
and so should accrue priority, but there are also
moral situations featuring powerless victims
around the globe; the only difference
is the instinctive emotional response
to preserve our genetic legacy.

(Before someone misunderstands my statement and tries to crucify me:
Of course I would help the baby and berate the daylights out of its
inattentive guardians. However, that doesn't mean it
has any higher or lower significance than anyone else.
Absolute declarations are impossible.)

 

[Hazard]

I am not arguing that money has no utility value, I am arguing that
other factors can play a role in deciding
what is most moral in a situation.

Simply donating money says nothing about
how effectively it will be used, towards
what goals it will be applied, whether
those goals are constructive or destructive,
or, well, anything at all. So,
according to the bolded bit,
you actually agreed with me.



Your initial phrasing borders on ad hominem.

The presence of guilt does not determine moral validity,
and, again, it is impossible to evaluate the absolute worth
of a human being, so I could lean either way in your query.
Granted, the toddler is presumably unable to help itself
and so should accrue priority, but there are also
moral situations featuring powerless victims
around the globe; the only difference
is the instinctive emotional response
to preserve our genetic legacy.

(Before someone misunderstands my statement and tries to crucify me:
Of course I would help the baby and berate the daylights out of its
inattentive guardians. However, that doesn't mean it
has any higher or lower significance than anyone else.
Absolute declarations are impossible.)

Thanks! You gave me a few things to think about. The neutrality bit especially aids the concept of morality I have right now. I actually think this will help me in my daily life as well. Don't worry, I wasn't trying to make you look like a bad person. I was trying to see how you'd react if such a situation occurred and how you believe you should handle the situation.

 

[Awesome]

1,000,000 means enough money to fund my entire college experience + spending money for looking for jobs or some kind of financial emergency
+ enough to fund my little sister through college
+ enough to give to my parents a very comfortable retirement

No questions asked, I'd do it.