Would you kill a puppy for $1000000? | Page 49 | INFJ Forum

Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

Of course I'd kill a puppy for $1,000,000
I'd kill a puppy for $1,000
Think of all the human lives that could be saved with $1,000,000
Estimates say that it costs somewhere between $200 and $2,000 to save a human life
That's between 5000 and 50,000 lives that you're sacrificing by being too cowardly to kill a puppy
You monsters
 
  • Like
Reactions: the, Milktoast Bandit, Jet and 1 other person
tentacledGnostalgic said:
Of course I'd kill a puppy for $1,000,000
I'd kill a puppy for $1,000
Think of all the human lives that could be saved with $1,000,000
Estimates say that it costs somewhere between $200 and $2,000 to save a human life
That's between 5000 and 50,000 lives that you're sacrificing by being too cowardly to kill a puppy
You monsters
Click to expand...


FINALLY SOME SENSE!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jet, tentacledGnostalgic and ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc
A million times yes.
 

Attachments

  • rabbitt.jpg
    rabbitt.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 11
No, and then I would tell everyone about it and feel self righteously indignant and morally superior to everyone else.


I would actually sort of feel sorry for the puppy and adopt it and then keep it as I would relate to it and it's plight and feel a special bond and connection.
 
Last edited:
It's got nothing to do with superiority. It is morally wrong to kill for money, especially beings that are trusting cannot defend themselves. The only thing I would condone in this situation is euthanasia, if the animal were terminally ill, but the idea of taking money for that makes me sick.
 
Don't forget, you can't spend the money to help others! Now kill that doggy so you can wear your Prada and Gucci.
 
Majesty said:
This question is asked in every forum, might as well put it in this one too.

A cute adorable and nice little puppy.

You could kill it and get $1000000.

You could only use that money for yourself (or friends and stuff). What I mean is that you can't kill the puppy and give all the money to a foundation to save puppies or something. You could only buy yourself a iPod and go with your friends in a trip, ect.

Would you? And do you think it's right to do?
Click to expand...

I do not like the kind of reasoning that produced these premises, but I cannot help feeling kind of in awe at its immoral genius: if the question had « only » been about killing a puppy for 1M, one might have resorted to utilitarian ethics to justify the crime. But the devilish clause is added that “you may not spend any of the money for charitable causes”, which is a way of bereaving the responder of any recourse to utilitarian ethics either. As for virtue ethics, needless to say that the killing of innocent puppies would rather seem to point the way towards the cultivation of vice, not virtue.

In sum, any person who pretends to subscribe to any kind of moral system or framework would have to reply “no, I would not kill the puppy”. It seems to me that the premises make every single form of moral framework unavailable, bar egotistic immorality. I personally would answer that no, I would not kill the puppy, because I am at least willing to be judged by the yardstick of a moral law if I fail at not killing it when faced with the temptation. May the puppy survive!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote, acd, hush and 1 other person
Ren said:
I do not like the kind of reasoning that produced these premises, but I cannot help feeling kind of in awe at its immoral genius: if the question had « only » been about killing a puppy for 1M, one might have resorted to utilitarian ethics to justify the crime. But the devilish clause is added that “you may not spend any of the money for charitable causes”, which is a way of bereaving the responder of any recourse to utilitarian ethics either. As for virtue ethics, needless to say that the killing of innocent puppies would rather seem to point the way towards the cultivation of vice, not virtue.

In sum, any person who pretends to subscribe to any kind of moral system or framework would have to reply “no, I would not kill the puppy”. It seems to me that the premises make every single form of moral framework unavailable, bar egotistic immorality. I personally would answer that no, I would not kill the puppy, because I am at least willing to be judged by the yardstick of a moral law if I fail at not killing it when faced with the temptation. May the puppy will survive!
Click to expand...
Probably the most well written response I've seen here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote, Ren, hush and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back