Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

[DimensionX]

The advantage of foresight, always be prepared. Even then, a rudimentary spear throwing device would be sufficient and capable, hell a bow in arrow is good enough if you have the skill necessary to take down large game.

Human history didn't start at WWI, we've taking down creatures larger and stronger then ourselves for our entire history(also using the good sense to run when necessary).

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.

 

[TomarctusHU]

Human history didn't start at WWI, we've taking down creatures larger and stronger then ourselves for our entire history(also using the good sense to run when necessary).

Are you seriously saying that todays average human could be able to survive in the wildness without any special training/equipment? And then I'm not even talking about fighting elephants.
Yeah, the humans have been able to do so few thousand years ago, but today most ppl are weaker, have no instincts, and have zero knowledge about wilderness. Don't forget that we have changed because of the new environment that we live in. Which has nothing to do with anything natural.
So comparing humans to animals this way is pointless.

 

[Saru Inc]

If we put a human in a alt.universe where are no infrastructure/supermarkets/etc. ,then i doubt which one of them would survive further in a completely NATURAL environment.

Animals - Machines comparison is quite interesting. I have learned ethology for a while, and perhaps I'm looking almost the same way at them sometimes, and because of this I don't feel any grudge if they kill each other or others cubs. (Because they have their ground, and these grounds are better then the ones we humans have. Money, eh? ) But there are still differences. My comp wont feel pain if i crush it, and even animals have emotions/feelings, they are much more like humans than machines.

PS:
If we want to check which one is the better int the "Survival of the fittest" game, then of course we have to take away those "tools". Todays humanity has not much to do with anything natural to begin with.

You are exactly right, they do feel pain. However, I believe that Humans have souls, that will carry onto the afterlife. (Heaven.) Animals, do not have a soul I believe. And thus, I am anti animal cruelty, due to the fact they can still feel pain. Nevertheless, if they do not have a soul, I feel there is no wrong in killing them, as long as its quick. Which if I was doing for a million dollars, trust me, it'd be quick.

 

[TomarctusHU]

You are exactly right, they do feel pain. However, I believe that Humans have souls, that will carry onto the afterlife. (Heaven.) Animals, do not have a soul I believe. And thus, I am anti animal cruelty, due to the fact they can still feel pain. Nevertheless, if they do not have a soul, I feel there is no wrong in killing them, as long as its quick. Which if I was doing for a million dollars, trust me, it'd be quick.

Having/Not having soul is quite hard a question. I have no concrete definition what soul is. >_<
If "Having soul" means something like that the subject thinks about their deeds as good or bad, then they don't really have something like that.*
But thinking about the differences I think that your actions could be much more justified because of their lack of ability to plan ahead. They don't really have a future/dreams they hold dear after my informations, what makes their loss more acceptable.
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't be able to do so, but I understand those who could. (+ I had a childhood trauma when rabbit that I held as a pet was the dinner next day, and i saw it's death. >_> )

*But of course this is influenced by the limited amount of information i have. And most likely this is some higher level brain-function, so some highly intelligent animals could have "souls". And I also don't want to complicate this matter with theories like the Buddhist reincarnation.

PS: Studying engineering affects a persons writing stile....

 

[rogarn]

I would definitely do it. Not that I'm particularly fond of killing animals, but the things I could do with that kind of money would make up for it(if you even care about that sort of thing). As long as I am allowed to kill it quickly.

 

[kucala]

My personal opinion is that I wouldn't be able to do so, but I understand those who could.

+1

 

[magister343]

You are exactly right, they do feel pain. However, I believe that Humans have souls, that will carry onto the afterlife. (Heaven.) Animals, do not have a soul I believe. And thus, I am anti animal cruelty, due to the fact they can still feel pain. Nevertheless, if they do not have a soul, I feel there is no wrong in killing them, as long as its quick. Which if I was doing for a million dollars, trust me, it'd be quick.

Etymologically speaking, animals have souls by definition. In Latin "animal" literally means "thing with a soul."

Of course, this does not mean that their souls are as human souls are popularly conceived. In its most basic sense the soul is equated to the breath of life, or sometimes as the source of something's identity. It need not be an immaterial substance as popularly conceived, and makes more sense under an older conception of a platonic form. I prefer to think of it as the gestalt, rather than any part of the self.

(In Latin either anima or animus can be translated as soul and animal could reference either or both, but their definitions are not quite the same. The feminine anima is the more basic, fundamental, existential aspect of the self. It seems to be that which determines identity, and the seat of the deepest of emotions like love. The masculine animus is connected more to the mind, consciousness, mood, more common emotions, and the will. Maybe I've watched too much Babylon 5 last week, but the anima could be seen as the answer to the Vorlon question "Who are you?" and the animus the Shadow question "What do you want?")

There is nothing in the bible indicating that any souls (human or otherwise) are naturally immortal. Scripture explicitly states that Only God is Immortal, and presents immortality as a gift to be sought after rather than an intrinsic property. The bible does not speak of going to Heaven when we die, but of a bodily resurrection on Earth on judgment day, and new incorruptable bodies in which the saints will resign forever on the New Earth. While these may be bodies not of flesh as we know it, there is no notion of incorporeal souls. There is not much support for the notion that souls continue to exist, at least consciously, after death, although it is made clear that human souls shall be restored. Other animals seem to be absent from accounts of the resurrection, but that does not necessarily mean that their souls are qualitatively different, only that the Lord cares for us more.

 

[Saru Inc]

Having/Not having soul is quite hard a question. I have no concrete definition what soul is. >_<
If "Having soul" means something like that the subject thinks about their deeds as good or bad, then they don't really have something like that.*
But thinking about the differences I think that your actions could be much more justified because of their lack of ability to plan ahead. They don't really have a future/dreams they hold dear after my informations, what makes their loss more acceptable.

Ummm.... The fact they have no soul. I just said that.

Of course, this does not mean that their souls are as human souls are popularly conceived. In its most basic sense the soul is equated to the breath of life, or sometimes as the source of something's identity. It need not be an immaterial substance as popularly conceived, and makes more sense under an older conception of a platonic form. I prefer to think of it as the gestalt, rather than any part of the self.

There is nothing in the bible indicating that any souls (human or otherwise) are naturally immortal. Scripture explicitly states that Only God is Immortal, and presents immortality as a gift to be sought after rather than an intrinsic property. The bible does not speak of going to Heaven when we die, but of a bodily resurrection on Earth on judgment day, and new incorruptable bodies in which the saints will resign forever on the New Earth. While these may be bodies not of flesh as we know it, there is no notion of incorporeal souls. There is not much support for the notion that souls continue to exist, at least consciously, after death, although it is made clear that human souls shall be restored. Other animals seem to be absent from accounts of the resurrection, but that does not necessarily mean that their souls are qualitatively different, only that the Lord cares for us more.

That's not true whatsoever according to my beliefs.

 

[Trifoilum]

There were certain Native tribes that ate puppies...

So very true. Dog meat sukiyaki, anyone? :|

Anyway, my answer?

How fast do you want me to do? *shot by everyone*

Well, not that cruel, but I think I can, and I will. It depends with the methods I'm able to use (euthanasia!).
And this is somekind of a consolation prize / rationalization, but with the prize money, I can do something that helps other puppies.

Either way, I can. I think. :|

 

[NuthatchXi]

And this is somekind of a consolation prize / rationalization, but with the prize money, I can do something that helps other puppies.

I understand this impulse, but it's a contradiction of the conditions of the original question.

 

[rogarn]

In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, you can have a person killed for $50. Just food for thought.

 

[TomarctusHU]

Etymologically speaking, animals have souls by definition. In Latin "animal" literally means "thing with a soul."

And that's the reason why i have asked for the correct definition of "soul". Even after a quick search I found 10 definitions, which is why I don't use such loosely defined terms. Tells Tomarctus explaining that he was just answering to his highest capability, while implying him thanks for clearing up the confusion.

 

[Saru Inc]

And that's the reason why i have asked for the correct definition of "soul". Even after a quick search I found 10 definitions, which is why I don't use such loosely defined terms. Tells Tomarctus explaining that he was just answering to his highest capability, while implying him thanks for clearing up the confusion.

I see the soul, as a deeper personality. At least, that's how it represents itself in corporal form.

 

[invisible]

today i woke up and thought what a beautiful day it would be for me to kill some humans and make some money as after all there are millions of them. even a little bit of rape and torture perhaps as they will be dead afterwards and it won't matter to them anymore.

 

[Kavalan]

If you go read about that cyborg run by a mouse brain you would have found that animals indeed have personalities that manifest.

 

[Saru Inc]

today i woke up and thought what a beautiful day it would be for me to kill some humans and make some money as after all there are millions of them. even a little bit of rape and torture perhaps as they will be dead afterwards and it won't matter to them anymore.

And then we'll circumcise them! Yea!


I think people are misunderstanding me, whether myfault or theirs. I'm not saying I enjoy treating animals cruelly. In fact, I can't stand people who do. however, I also realize that if someoen offered me a million dollars to kill an amazing cute puppy, I'd bite the bullet and do the deed. I'm not saying I would enjoy, I'm just saying I'm capable of doing it, and would do it soley for monetary reasons. (Hell, I'd do it for $500. Provided the law wouldn't come after me.)

 

[NuthatchXi]

I couldn't disagree with you more on your conclusion, but I definitely appreciate your honesty.

 

[TinyBubbles]

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.

Lol, this is a good point. Humans' real advantage over other animals is to cooperate with each other, to learn from each other, to act as a united front. A lone human against a typical predator, even with a lot of prior training (which itself would probably be dependent on his cooperating with others enough to gain those skills), would likely die.

Still ain't right to kill the puppy though. But whoever said "would you kill a rat" in place of the puppy makes a valid point too. People are more willing to kill a baby rat than a puppy, more willing to kill an adult human than a child. What's the distinction here? Both the puppy and the human child seem more innocent, more cuter, and less deserving of such punishment, but are they really? This is an entirely subjective decision in the end, and the fact that one can psychologically distance themselves from the action itself (as in, hiring someone else to do it like I said earlier to Peppermint), means that you can override your conscience, making the decision *entirely* about you and how you *personally* value things, and potentially completely divorced from the objective value of the animal's life itself. In other words, you can permit yourself to kill an innocent puppy for money if you place enough psychological distance between yourself and the puppy, and think in a way that you are convinced it is neither innocent, nor cute, nor important, etc. which are all subjective criteria and are therefore all liable to personal prejudice.

A million dollars *is* a lot of money; Urtehnoes is right. Honestly, if someone legitimately offered me that much to kill 1 puppy, I'd have to seriously consider it.

 

[Faye]

1. Yes, I would. Much worse is routinely done for much less, and if you are not vegetarian (probably a vegan) and a modest contributor to global charity, then you are a contributor to significantly worse suffering of even more animals (including humans). Actually, the way things are set up in the U.S., you contribute even if you are vegan by virtue of the tax system subsidizing CFOs.

2. Why the heck couldn't I spend the money on charity? If giving money to charity makes me feel good in the same way that buying an i-pod makes others feel good, what is the difference in what I spend it on?

Also, what if I have a pre-established obligation to donate a certain portion of the money to charity given that I am categorizing it as part of my income?

 

[Saru Inc]

1. Yes, I would. Much worse is routinely done for much less, and if you are not vegetarian (probably a vegan) and a modest contributor to global charity, then you are a contributor to significantly worse suffering of even more animals (including humans). Actually, the way things are set up in the U.S., you contribute even if you are vegan by virtue of the tax system subsidizing CFOs.

2. Why the heck couldn't I spend the money on charity? If giving money to charity makes me feel good in the same way that buying an i-pod makes others feel good, what is the difference in what I spend it on?

Also, what if I have a pre-established obligation to donate a certain portion of the money to charity given that I am categorizing it as part of my income?

The charity rule is there, to imply that nothing good will come out of this, except for the recognition of personal "greed."