Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

arguments;

1. i have ultimate power and therefore i can do what i want because nobody can stop me

or

2. right and wrong don't matter and therefore i can do what i want

or

3. right and wrong do matter but smaller instances like the amount of wrong done by an individual person do not matter so therefore i do not have to be concerned about doing another wrong thing if i want to

or

4. the subject position of dogs is not valid as individual dogs are not different from one another so i can kill a dog as there will always be other dogs to replace it but it would be different if it were a human as humans are each unique and special

or

5. we can't know whether or not dogs feel anything since we are not dogs and therefore we can do things to dogs that are harmful by human standards as we have no proof that we are really harming them

or

6. human laws about killing are arbitrary constructs based on our meaningless ideas of right and wrong and it would be wrong to kill a dog for a million dollars if there was a law saying that we could not kill a dog for a million dollars

...?

fraught
 
invisible said:
arguments;

1. i have ultimate power and therefore i can do what i want because nobody can stop me

or

2. right and wrong don't matter and therefore i can do what i want

or

3. right and wrong do matter but smaller instances like the amount of wrong done by an individual person do not matter so therefore i do not have to be concerned about doing another wrong thing if i want to

or

4. the subject position of dogs is not valid as individual dogs are not different from one another so i can kill a dog but it would be different if it were a human as humans are each unique and special

or

5. we can't know whether or not dogs feel anything since we are not dogs and therefore we can do things to dogs that are harmful by human standards as we have no proof that we are really harming them

or

6. human laws about killing are arbitrary constructs based on our meaningless ideas of right and wrong and it would be wrong to kill a dog for a million dollars if there was a law saying that we could not kill a dog for a million dollars

...?

fraught
Click to expand...

Examine the 'Nash Equilibrium' for a mathematical solution to your quandary.
 
~jet said:
Examine the 'Nash Equilibrium' for a mathematical solution to your quandary.
Click to expand...

everyone must do as well for their priorities of what is subjectively right and wrong as they can and that results in evening things out? i better read some more wikipedia but this is interesting and reminds me of a yin yang.

or uh better read some philosophy some time too.
 
Last edited:
invisible said:
everyone must do as well for their priorities of what is subjectively right and wrong as they can and that results in evening things out? i better read some more wikipedia but this is interesting and reminds me of a yin yang
Click to expand...

General idea is, instead of doing something that is 100% right for YOU or something that is 100% right for someone else, do something that is 80% good for YOU and 80% good for someone else at the same time (160% > 100%, after all.) The world would be a far better place if more people did this.
 
DimensionX said:
Elephant hide isn't tissue paper, you do realise that it generally speaking takes multiple people all equipped with rudermentry spears to take one down. Elephants have been known to take down crocodiles a reptile of which hasn't had to evolve for many a year with their trunks, they are strong, faster and a little more gutsy that your average human I don't care how quickly you type your situation into ask jeeves on your internet enabled phone, the top ten results will still be "you're screwed" or something of that nature.
Click to expand...


Your point has flaws. I for one am not going to say killing the puppy is ethical but just going of what has been said here, Barnabas and Urtehnoes have points. You are arguing that an elephant is superior to us because we cannot take down one by ourselves. That argument in itself is flawed because you are looking at things as an individual view. If you are to compare species you have to compare the entire species. Humans are social animals and since the beginning of time have hunted in groups like most social animals do. The elephant is a specialized creature that is only built for its environment. Take that elephant and put it in a polar bears environment and it is dead in 2 hours, yet humans have lived in that same environment for thousands of years. Take any other social animal and put them by themselves in a new environment alone, and 9 out 10 times, they will not last as long as human alone. Take a wolf from its pack and its dead, take a lion or lioness from its pride and its dead, and take a fish from its school and its dead. Even take an elephant from its heard and it will fall prey to something else. Hell consider the fact that some African ants have been known to take down pray as large as humans and you will get my point.

Humans from an evolutionary, mental, and adaptability standpoint are the most superior creature on the face of the earth. Yes, cataclysmic events like nuclear war and an asteroid striking the earth could change that but that doesn
 
]
149189_1712241847247_1274160422_1874594_6371702_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
1million.jpg

:m075:
 
Nope. Can't conceive of any situation short of defense of self/others.
I mean really, when people ask you how you got to where you are today, you get to answer with "I killed a puppy! :mhula:"
 
I hope all your money buys you AIDS.
:D
 
Last edited:
No, I am pretty sure I wouldn't. Money doesn't mean a lot to me in the first place. If I did care about money that much, I would already be making a lot more than what I am.

For me, it is about the link between adolescence and innocence. I don't think I could willingly kill anything in an adolescent form.

If it were a mature dog, I might think about it, but I probably still couldn't unless it was rabid or something.

Man vs puppy isn't really a good argument, it should be more like a toddler or baby vs a puppy.

Most that argue they would kill a human before an animal probably also see it as a weight of innocence. Humans are destroying a lot on the planet and taking advantage of a lot, which makes us sort of inherently less innocent than those beings that suffer because of it. That would be an interesting study in psychology of how some view the collective of humanity. I can definitely say I view humanity as less innocent (excluding adolescents) a lot of the time.
 
I’d like to share with you a revelation I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure
Click to expand...
~The Matrix

For as dark as it is there is some truth to what's being said... And who said movies are bad for you?
 
It's from South Park.


Jared from Subway said he had aides (as in assistants) that helped him lose weight. The boys interpreted it as having AIDS which caused weightloss, so they spread the word to everyone to get AIDS in order to lose weight.

It also makes more sense than buying AIDS.
 
You will argue just for the sake of arguing.
You are kind of trollish now that I think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
No, and no.


One: How was that statement arguing? I was making a joke.

Two: Trolls purposefully post false beliefs in order to enrage people. I do not do that, though my jokes do tend to be a tad insensitive.
 
Do I have to use my bare hands?
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top