Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?
- Thread starter Majesty
- Start date
Dunno. It's a tough one. I'm still haunted by the loss of a puppy when I was 10-11. My parents gave away a puppy they got for me to one of my cousins and I heard that they threw him off the roof.
Anyways .. instead of just thinking about the puppy, I find myself staring at the dilemma that I'm a meat-eater and in a way responsible for the death of animals that I consume for my own sustenance - and I actually pay to get those animals killed. And yet, I find myself unable to accept the responsibility of killing an animal with my own hands because it makes the "murder" more personal. It is an ethical dilemma.
In the end, I decide not to kill directly by my own hand. Would I euthanize a suffering animal? Maybe. I haven't faced that situation. I have had 3 pets die on me (a parrot, a cat and a dog) and I'm haunted by their deaths to this day. A pre-meditated murder will probably make me suffer more. I choose not to commit it.
In fact, I don't partake in an annual sacrifice that people of my religious persuasion do for this very reason. Ironically, I do consume the meat of other people's sacrifices. I wonder if that makes me a hypocrite.
Anyways .. instead of just thinking about the puppy, I find myself staring at the dilemma that I'm a meat-eater and in a way responsible for the death of animals that I consume for my own sustenance - and I actually pay to get those animals killed. And yet, I find myself unable to accept the responsibility of killing an animal with my own hands because it makes the "murder" more personal. It is an ethical dilemma.
In the end, I decide not to kill directly by my own hand. Would I euthanize a suffering animal? Maybe. I haven't faced that situation. I have had 3 pets die on me (a parrot, a cat and a dog) and I'm haunted by their deaths to this day. A pre-meditated murder will probably make me suffer more. I choose not to commit it.
In fact, I don't partake in an annual sacrifice that people of my religious persuasion do for this very reason. Ironically, I do consume the meat of other people's sacrifices. I wonder if that makes me a hypocrite.
What you mean is that I am not allowed to do GOOD things in the world with that money, but only petty and selfish things that an insipid little ego can dream up? Then no, and I might kill whomever it was that offered me this deal and simply take their money by force instead, since they are clearly evil and shouldn't be allowed to carry the power of 1,000,000 dollars around and set up puppies for destruction, nor tempt beings into corruption.
But if I had the power to cause 1,000,000 dollars worth of good events in this world merely by extinguishing the bodily life or physical integrity of a being, I would do it in as painless a way as possible since death of the body, IN ITSELF, is not evil. What is evil is SUFFERING and the willingness to cause it and even the willingness to endure it (except when it means that doing otherwise would corrupt one's own spiritual nature...). That suffering
is what is wrong with the world and that is caused by these entropic bodily conditions in the first place. If it were up to me all of this physical realm would be done the favor of being disintegrated so that spiritual sorting processes would accelerate apace and then good beings wouldn't be forced to exist in evil environments and coexist with evil beings in bodies and with material which suits the exploitation of the the good by the evil.
So let's say the conditions were favorable under my interpretation, and there was zero chance for error in this assessment. I would do it the way I say, and then would take that money and do such things with it as make evil men suffer far worse fates than that puppy at my hands, and I know that if that puppy knew what I did it would agree with my actions and the way I spent every single cent. In fact, on that condition I would do anyone the very same favor.
This means I'd have to ensure that there was no suffering in the killed bodily being, nor any suffering as a direct or indirect result of that killing. For moral beings, the only true death is MORAL CORRUPTION. For evil beings such a death is not possible, so they merely fear the loss of physical possessions, bodily comforts, and life of the body simply because it represents a fundamental loss of the other two things. For them pains of that sort are really metaphysical privations of their spiritual health since only by fraudulent transactions involving bodies can they get their nourishment, which means by parasitism upon True and Good beings trapped also in such bodies. For a True Being, who has lived and died MANY times, being out of the body is ALWAYS preferable.
A similar challenge is deciding to amputate a limb in order to save a body, or perhaps many bodies. But at least know this, even if my inclination chills you: Your reaction is based on an egotistical understanding of life which is confined to physical parameters. For beings who know better I offer this other reassurance: Unless I had absolute certainty that such an action caused NO SUFFERING to any TRUE MORAL BEING, then I wouldn't do it. This means that disembodying a True Being would not be chosen as a course of action unless I was absolutely certain beyond any possible doubt that it could not harm that being's SPIRITUAL HEALTH, and that I was certain that no power proceeding from it would dishonor the intention of that act.
Extending this ideation, I know for a fact that I am incapable of such certainty, so I would never entertain such an act in fact, but I am aware of a Being who can and does. That Being is currently disembodying all spiritual beings in this dimension and sorting them in another so that one set is annihilated and the other is preserved and allowed to continue its evolution. That is far more efficient than anything I can ever do with even all the money in the world, so I wouldn't find myself "tempted" if this offer seriously came my way.
But if I had the power to cause 1,000,000 dollars worth of good events in this world merely by extinguishing the bodily life or physical integrity of a being, I would do it in as painless a way as possible since death of the body, IN ITSELF, is not evil. What is evil is SUFFERING and the willingness to cause it and even the willingness to endure it (except when it means that doing otherwise would corrupt one's own spiritual nature...). That suffering
is what is wrong with the world and that is caused by these entropic bodily conditions in the first place. If it were up to me all of this physical realm would be done the favor of being disintegrated so that spiritual sorting processes would accelerate apace and then good beings wouldn't be forced to exist in evil environments and coexist with evil beings in bodies and with material which suits the exploitation of the the good by the evil.
So let's say the conditions were favorable under my interpretation, and there was zero chance for error in this assessment. I would do it the way I say, and then would take that money and do such things with it as make evil men suffer far worse fates than that puppy at my hands, and I know that if that puppy knew what I did it would agree with my actions and the way I spent every single cent. In fact, on that condition I would do anyone the very same favor.
This means I'd have to ensure that there was no suffering in the killed bodily being, nor any suffering as a direct or indirect result of that killing. For moral beings, the only true death is MORAL CORRUPTION. For evil beings such a death is not possible, so they merely fear the loss of physical possessions, bodily comforts, and life of the body simply because it represents a fundamental loss of the other two things. For them pains of that sort are really metaphysical privations of their spiritual health since only by fraudulent transactions involving bodies can they get their nourishment, which means by parasitism upon True and Good beings trapped also in such bodies. For a True Being, who has lived and died MANY times, being out of the body is ALWAYS preferable.
A similar challenge is deciding to amputate a limb in order to save a body, or perhaps many bodies. But at least know this, even if my inclination chills you: Your reaction is based on an egotistical understanding of life which is confined to physical parameters. For beings who know better I offer this other reassurance: Unless I had absolute certainty that such an action caused NO SUFFERING to any TRUE MORAL BEING, then I wouldn't do it. This means that disembodying a True Being would not be chosen as a course of action unless I was absolutely certain beyond any possible doubt that it could not harm that being's SPIRITUAL HEALTH, and that I was certain that no power proceeding from it would dishonor the intention of that act.
Extending this ideation, I know for a fact that I am incapable of such certainty, so I would never entertain such an act in fact, but I am aware of a Being who can and does. That Being is currently disembodying all spiritual beings in this dimension and sorting them in another so that one set is annihilated and the other is preserved and allowed to continue its evolution. That is far more efficient than anything I can ever do with even all the money in the world, so I wouldn't find myself "tempted" if this offer seriously came my way.
Last edited:
No.
Not because puppies are worth more than a fish (I will kill and eat a fish, among other things. I'd probably eat a dog, too.) but rather because the question attempts to railroad my essential nature and attempts to illustrate a quagmire that I simply do not have.
Not because puppies are worth more than a fish (I will kill and eat a fish, among other things. I'd probably eat a dog, too.) but rather because the question attempts to railroad my essential nature and attempts to illustrate a quagmire that I simply do not have.
yes, but only if I could poison it...that for me is better than beating it with say an ax for example. I mean I could just think how that money would resolve some major issues in my life right now.
Poison can be painful and take a while whereas a single blow to the head with an axe would likely kill it instantly.
But it isn't as brutal, plus you would have the choice of witnessing it die or not, though it would take longer, I would still get my money in any case
But it isn't as brutal, plus you would have the choice of witnessing it die or not, though it would take longer, I would still get my money in any case
Ok, who does brutal in this case matter to? You? If you care how the puppy dies you probably shouldnt be killing it in the first place. Why poison anyway? Why not just euthanize as they do at the vets? Or should it be a more personal thing where you give the puppy a chance to survive, to run away. Granted not a great choice for the puppy because most of them are kind and loving. More likely to not run and to try and lick you to death even as you strangle the life from it for your deserved cool million...
If the puppy was going to die within the day anyway whether I killed it or not, I would kill it for a million dollars. If the puppy, would live absent the fact someone would kill it for a cool million I would likely...remove the threat of the puppys impending doom to give it the chance to live a normal life.
A better question. You are put in a room with 10 puppies. Each puppies death is worth a million dollars in the bank for you. The only information you are given is that no one will ever know how many puppies you did or did not kill. You do not know when the puppies will die after you leave assuming you leave any alive. All you have is your bare hands and 8 hours.
Now, how many puppies are alive when you leave the room?
"Ok, who does brutal in this case matter to? You?"
"Why not just euthanize as they do at the vets?"
Well humans seem to think that to use poison during euthanization is okay and more humane. So why shouldn't I poison my own puppy to get my million dollars, if that is the overwhelming concensus?
The only information you are given is that no one will ever know how many puppies you did or did not kill. All you have is your bare hands and 8 hours.
Now, how many puppies are alive when you leave the room?
Whats the use of killing the puppies then? i may as well lie and say i killed them all
"Why not just euthanize as they do at the vets?"
Well humans seem to think that to use poison during euthanization is okay and more humane. So why shouldn't I poison my own puppy to get my million dollars, if that is the overwhelming concensus?
The only information you are given is that no one will ever know how many puppies you did or did not kill. All you have is your bare hands and 8 hours.
Now, how many puppies are alive when you leave the room?
Whats the use of killing the puppies then? i may as well lie and say i killed them all
I don't believe that it's ok to do something that is ethically wrong, even if the end result gives more happiness overall. I'm not very big fan of Utilitarian ethics. In my culture, killing a a dog would be morally wrong thing to do. So I wouldn't kill a puppy. If I lived in a culture or in a situation where it was norm that people ate dogs, and people were very hungry, I think I could kill a puppy.
It is noble way to think that you could give the money to someone who needs it. But did you make someone unhappy by killing the puppy? And then there is the question how much happiness does money give? Is it worth it? I don't believe so, that in my culture it would be worth it. Maybe I'm just too spoiled and have too much money.
It is noble way to think that you could give the money to someone who needs it. But did you make someone unhappy by killing the puppy? And then there is the question how much happiness does money give? Is it worth it? I don't believe so, that in my culture it would be worth it. Maybe I'm just too spoiled and have too much money.