Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

invisible said:
It's like that ABBA song. "Money money money money, always sunny in a rich man's world. Ah-ha, ah-ha; all the things I could do if I had a little money... It's a rich man's world."
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'd be able to fully cover the highest education, buy an excellent vehicle, have a wardrobe full of Italian suits, and invest on top of that.
 
Aww, you guys are making puppy sad

1a633489c38c82cf679689d66d675b96.jpg
 
Raccoon Love said:
Gosh, this thread is disgusting.

Comparing animals to machines? They are living beings for God's sake. They feel just the way we do. But I see we are getting all cold and scientific here, so I am going to jump in that bandwagon. What makes you any different than that animal, specially since we have evolved from many of this creatures ourselves. We share so many similar characteristics it does not mean we are any more valuable or more "different", just wait until the next species arises or till an atomic bomb falls and all you see is roaches, so I am guessing roaches are superior in that sense?. Animals are not things we just program they come with innate intelligence and qualities that may not match our own but are nevertheless valuable and hold a purpose in this world. I am not saying that perhaps the consumption of meat is wrong(though I heavily question it due to the possible alternatives), but killing for such selfish purposes just to fit your wants(note wants not needs) is purely inhumane and unnecessary. I once read a story by Mark Twain, it was about how we call other animals irrational when in reality we don't notice our own irrational way of thinking. Most animals do not kill for pleasure, humans do. Most animals do not fight over silly things like religious background and learn to adapt, we don't. Most animals consume only the amount of food they truly need, we don't. It all seems to me that us humans can be seen as less valuable than some of this animals you claim to be "superior" to.
Click to expand...
 
I'm with Kant and his categorical imperative on this:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

That is, the problem with utilitarian calculations like this is that they typically suffer from a failure of imagination in calculating the true, long-term costs. And that's even if we wish to play the utilitarian game.

Taken to its logical conclusion, an act such as this inflicts irredeemable damage to the culture and to the collective human psyche.

One million dollars is nothing compared to the value lost to the human community when such an act is committed.

Taken like this, I think you would have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to then justify the act even on purely rational grounds.

Act in this way, and what you're submitting to is the principle that murder is acceptable given a high enough 'reward'. Murder a puppy for a million dollars today, but keep your silence when someone chooses to slay your mother for a billion tomorrow: this is the weregild and the principle you've chosen.
 
Not this fucking thread again. Everyone wants to pretend they have morals and ethics until something they want is dangled in front of them like a carrot, or in this case, money.
 
Asa said:
Not this fucking thread again. Everyone wants to pretend they have morals and ethics until something they want is dangled in front of them like a carrot, or in this case, money.
Click to expand...

And people think it's hilarious to watch others squirm at the struggle between morality and desire
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I'm with Kant and his categorical imperative on this:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

That is, the problem with utilitarian calculations like this is that they typically suffer from a failure of imagination in calculating the true, long-term costs. And that's even if we wish to play the utilitarian game.

Taken to its logical conclusion, an act such as this inflicts irredeemable damage to the culture and to the collective human psyche.

One million dollars is nothing compared to the value lost to the human community when such an act is committed.

Taken like this, I think you would have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to then justify the act even on purely rational grounds.

Act in this way, and what you're submitting to is the principle that murder is acceptable given a high enough 'reward'. Murder a puppy for a million dollars today, but keep your silence when someone chooses to slay your mother for a billion tomorrow: this is the weregild and the principle you've chosen.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I must stand opposed. The life of someone's human mother and a puppy are not morally equivalent, no matter how many times someone is called a "son of a bitch." :laughing:

The losses of the human community when a puppy dies are marginal compared to when a human being (homo-sapien) dies.

Principle I choose "Anything other than a homo-sapien is fair-game."

Puppies aren't people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top