noobking406
159 posts
|
Topic: Off-topic /
Would you kill a puppy for $1,000,000?
Originally posted by Swish27:
“Worthless unless they serve your pleasure”, in a way yes, however, this pleasure you speak makes it sound almost sinister. However, would you also grade such elements are comradely or friendship as pleasure? If so is this such an extreme view, as why would I wish to be surrounded by people which cause harm or wish to?
Sorry, should have been more clear. “Pleasure” in this case meaning that your so-called marginal benefits are higher than your so-called marginal costs. An example would be a friend. I don’t know what a friend does to you, but he could give you a good time. If you did not have that friend, you would not have a good time. The marginal benefit in this case is the good time you’re having. The marginal cost would be the time you’re spending. Since the former exceeds the latter, he would be one to give you “pleasure” (the word sounds strange, but it’s the only way I can describe it as a single word).
As to your last sentence, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to “not wish to be surrounded by those whose marginal cost for you is higher than the marginal benefit to you”, but I’m merely wondering if saying they are worthless is such an easy statement to make.
For all intensive purposes of this argument, if the reward (money) >> risk/pain (law, jail) then the whether we conduct a bad act becomes obscured (start taking the risk/pain away, and the situation shifts). However, this by no means, means that I am a cold hearted killing machine. The whole point to this is simply, given the appropriate motivation anyone can and will do terrible things. Take a look at the Saw movies (I haven’t I hate that crap.) Mostly through, my interest stems from how values, seem to disappear or fade given the appropriate motivation, and if anyone hesitated in saying yes, there is a good chance that you would conduct the act. All I have to say on this issue is this, killing a human over a animal is far more difficult, personally I don’t know if I could do it, but I’m going to say I can to pursue the argument at hand.
Right, this is what I meant with the marginal benefits and marginal costs. However, doing the “terrible things” you describe would, in my opinion, ask of someone to be out of their mind. I really doubt if you would be able to kill, no matter the return. Bad thing is that we will most probably never be able to hear the complete and correct thoughts and reasoning of a killer, a murderer. Why someone would kill is beyond me, my thoughts on this are that such a person would be, simplistically said, lost his mind.
Also, I am a 100% serious (this is a hypothetical! I think a lot of you are wrong, and are afraid to appear cold hearted, and some just try to appear overly cold), however, that says very little, as the fact remains animals die. Death isn’t a pleasant as such there must be a motivation for it, therefore, why would this motivation pleasant? What I tried to figure out is what mechanism takes place to allow this to take place, I thought it was one of apparent usefulness.
Animals die, but would you be able to be the helping hand? That’s the whole question. Saying this on a forum indeed says absolutely nothing. Some may try to appear overly cold, as others will try to appear overly moral, the point is that answering this question is entirely different from having it offered to you in real life. The real question is whether you value a random life above money. A moralist would say it is wrong. An assassin would say it’s right. Who’s to say which one is correct?
I believe that most would say the moralist is, simply because there are more moralists than “assassins” (let’s group them more generally under “immoralists” or something). We might as well all be cold-hearted killers and not even worry about having such a question asked to us. The thing is that many of us are moralists and value the life of anyone, even another person, even a random puppy, above even a million dollars. The “immoralists” do not. There is no right or wrong, just people you would like to be with and people you’d definitely want to keep out of your way.
If you truly mean what you say, I unfortunately have to tell you that I’d rather keep you out of my way. I wouldn’t want to risk getting killed over spilling beer over your sweater. Not to say that you would, but your arguments and statements made me think that you would be able to kill anyone who’s bringing you more marginal costs than benefits. Again, I do not say this is wrong, merely to me. To say this objectively, you are neither wrong or right. You are following your own views. The only restriction is law and it is based on moral values. That is why it is harder to accept the views of an “immoralist” than that of a moralist.
“Worthless unless they serve your pleasure”, in a way yes, however, this pleasure you speak makes it sound almost sinister. However, would you also grade such elements are comradely or friendship as pleasure? If so is this such an extreme view, as why would I wish to be surrounded by people which cause harm or wish to?
Sorry, should have been more clear. “Pleasure” in this case meaning that your so-called marginal benefits are higher than your so-called marginal costs. An example would be a friend. I don’t know what a friend does to you, but he could give you a good time. If you did not have that friend, you would not have a good time. The marginal benefit in this case is the good time you’re having. The marginal cost would be the time you’re spending. Since the former exceeds the latter, he would be one to give you “pleasure” (the word sounds strange, but it’s the only way I can describe it as a single word).
As to your last sentence, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to “not wish to be surrounded by those whose marginal cost for you is higher than the marginal benefit to you”, but I’m merely wondering if saying they are worthless is such an easy statement to make.
For all intensive purposes of this argument, if the reward (money) >> risk/pain (law, jail) then the whether we conduct a bad act becomes obscured (start taking the risk/pain away, and the situation shifts). However, this by no means, means that I am a cold hearted killing machine. The whole point to this is simply, given the appropriate motivation anyone can and will do terrible things. Take a look at the Saw movies (I haven’t I hate that crap.) Mostly through, my interest stems from how values, seem to disappear or fade given the appropriate motivation, and if anyone hesitated in saying yes, there is a good chance that you would conduct the act. All I have to say on this issue is this, killing a human over a animal is far more difficult, personally I don’t know if I could do it, but I’m going to say I can to pursue the argument at hand.
Right, this is what I meant with the marginal benefits and marginal costs. However, doing the “terrible things” you describe would, in my opinion, ask of someone to be out of their mind. I really doubt if you would be able to kill, no matter the return. Bad thing is that we will most probably never be able to hear the complete and correct thoughts and reasoning of a killer, a murderer. Why someone would kill is beyond me, my thoughts on this are that such a person would be, simplistically said, lost his mind.
Also, I am a 100% serious (this is a hypothetical! I think a lot of you are wrong, and are afraid to appear cold hearted, and some just try to appear overly cold), however, that says very little, as the fact remains animals die. Death isn’t a pleasant as such there must be a motivation for it, therefore, why would this motivation pleasant? What I tried to figure out is what mechanism takes place to allow this to take place, I thought it was one of apparent usefulness.
Animals die, but would you be able to be the helping hand? That’s the whole question. Saying this on a forum indeed says absolutely nothing. Some may try to appear overly cold, as others will try to appear overly moral, the point is that answering this question is entirely different from having it offered to you in real life. The real question is whether you value a random life above money. A moralist would say it is wrong. An assassin would say it’s right. Who’s to say which one is correct?
I believe that most would say the moralist is, simply because there are more moralists than “assassins” (let’s group them more generally under “immoralists” or something). We might as well all be cold-hearted killers and not even worry about having such a question asked to us. The thing is that many of us are moralists and value the life of anyone, even another person, even a random puppy, above even a million dollars. The “immoralists” do not. There is no right or wrong, just people you would like to be with and people you’d definitely want to keep out of your way.
If you truly mean what you say, I unfortunately have to tell you that I’d rather keep you out of my way. I wouldn’t want to risk getting killed over spilling beer over your sweater. Not to say that you would, but your arguments and statements made me think that you would be able to kill anyone who’s bringing you more marginal costs than benefits. Again, I do not say this is wrong, merely to me. To say this objectively, you are neither wrong or right. You are following your own views. The only restriction is law and it is based on moral values. That is why it is harder to accept the views of an “immoralist” than that of a moralist.
“Worthless unless they serve your pleasure”, in a way yes, however, this pleasure you speak makes it sound almost sinister. However, would you also grade such elements are comradely or friendship as pleasure? If so is this such an extreme view, as why would I wish to be surrounded by people which cause harm or wish to?
Sorry, should have been more clear. “Pleasure” in this case meaning that your so-called marginal benefits are higher than your so-called marginal costs. An example would be a friend. I don’t know what a friend does to you, but he could give you a good time. If you did not have that friend, you would not have a good time. The marginal benefit in this case is the good time you’re having. The marginal cost would be the time you’re spending. Since the former exceeds the latter, he would be one to give you “pleasure” (the word sounds strange, but it’s the only way I can describe it as a single word).
As to your last sentence, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to “not wish to be surrounded by those whose marginal cost for you is higher than the marginal benefit to you”, but I’m merely wondering if saying they are worthless is such an easy statement to make.
For all intensive purposes of this argument, if the reward (money) >> risk/pain (law, jail) then the whether we conduct a bad act becomes obscured (start taking the risk/pain away, and the situation shifts). However, this by no means, means that I am a cold hearted killing machine. The whole point to this is simply, given the appropriate motivation anyone can and will do terrible things. Take a look at the Saw movies (I haven’t I hate that crap.) Mostly through, my interest stems from how values, seem to disappear or fade given the appropriate motivation, and if anyone hesitated in saying yes, there is a good chance that you would conduct the act. All I have to say on this issue is this, killing a human over a animal is far more difficult, personally I don’t know if I could do it, but I’m going to say I can to pursue the argument at hand.
Right, this is what I meant with the marginal benefits and marginal costs. However, doing the “terrible things” you describe would, in my opinion, ask of someone to be out of their mind. I really doubt if you would be able to kill, no matter the return. Bad thing is that we will most probably never be able to hear the complete and correct thoughts and reasoning of a killer, a murderer. Why someone would kill is beyond me, my thoughts on this are that such a person would be, simplistically said, lost his mind.
Also, I am a 100% serious (this is a hypothetical! I think a lot of you are wrong, and are afraid to appear cold hearted, and some just try to appear overly cold), however, that says very little, as the fact remains animals die. Death isn’t a pleasant as such there must be a motivation for it, therefore, why would this motivation pleasant? What I tried to figure out is what mechanism takes place to allow this to take place, I thought it was one of apparent usefulness.
Animals die, but would you be able to be the helping hand? That’s the whole question. Saying this on a forum indeed says absolutely nothing. Some may try to appear overly cold, as others will try to appear overly moral, the point is that answering this question is entirely different from having it offered to you in real life. The real question is whether you value a random life above money. A moralist would say it is wrong. An assassin would say it’s right. Who’s to say which one is correct?
I believe that most would say the moralist is, simply because there are more moralists than “assassins” (let’s group them more generally under “immoralists” or something). We might as well all be cold-hearted killers and not even worry about having such a question asked to us. The thing is that many of us are moralists and value the life of anyone, even another person, even a random puppy, above even a million dollars. The “immoralists” do not. There is no right or wrong, just people you would like to be with and people you’d definitely want to keep out of your way.
If you truly mean what you say, I unfortunately have to tell you that I’d rather keep you out of my way. I wouldn’t want to risk getting killed over spilling beer over your sweater. Not to say that you would, but your arguments and statements made me think that you would be able to kill anyone who’s bringing you more marginal costs than benefits. Again, I do not say this is wrong, merely to me. To say this objectively, you are neither wrong or right. You are following your own views. The only restriction is law and it is based on moral values. That is why it is harder to accept the views of an “immoralist” than that of a moralist.
“Worthless unless they serve your pleasure”, in a way yes, however, this pleasure you speak makes it sound almost sinister. However, would you also grade such elements are comradely or friendship as pleasure? If so is this such an extreme view, as why would I wish to be surrounded by people which cause harm or wish to?
Sorry, should have been more clear. “Pleasure” in this case meaning that your so-called marginal benefits are higher than your so-called marginal costs. An example would be a friend. I don’t know what a friend does to you, but he could give you a good time. If you did not have that friend, you would not have a good time. The marginal benefit in this case is the good time you’re having. The marginal cost would be the time you’re spending. Since the former exceeds the latter, he would be one to give you “pleasure” (the word sounds strange, but it’s the only way I can describe it as a single word).
As to your last sentence, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to “not wish to be surrounded by those whose marginal cost for you is higher than the marginal benefit to you”, but I’m merely wondering if saying they are worthless is such an easy statement to make.
For all intensive purposes of this argument, if the reward (money) >> risk/pain (law, jail) then the whether we conduct a bad act becomes obscured (start taking the risk/pain away, and the situation shifts). However, this by no means, means that I am a cold hearted killing machine. The whole point to this is simply, given the appropriate motivation anyone can and will do terrible things. Take a look at the Saw movies (I haven’t I hate that crap.) Mostly through, my interest stems from how values, seem to disappear or fade given the appropriate motivation, and if anyone hesitated in saying yes, there is a good chance that you would conduct the act. All I have to say on this issue is this, killing a human over a animal is far more difficult, personally I don’t know if I could do it, but I’m going to say I can to pursue the argument at hand.
Right, this is what I meant with the marginal benefits and marginal costs. However, doing the “terrible things” you describe would, in my opinion, ask of someone to be out of their mind. I really doubt if you would be able to kill, no matter the return. Bad thing is that we will most probably never be able to hear the complete and correct thoughts and reasoning of a killer, a murderer. Why someone would kill is beyond me, my thoughts on this are that such a person would be, simplistically said, lost his mind.
Also, I am a 100% serious (this is a hypothetical! I think a lot of you are wrong, and are afraid to appear cold hearted, and some just try to appear overly cold), however, that says very little, as the fact remains animals die. Death isn’t a pleasant as such there must be a motivation for it, therefore, why would this motivation pleasant? What I tried to figure out is what mechanism takes place to allow this to take place, I thought it was one of apparent usefulness.
Animals die, but would you be able to be the helping hand? That’s the whole question. Saying this on a forum indeed says absolutely nothing. Some may try to appear overly cold, as others will try to appear overly moral, the point is that answering this question is entirely different from having it offered to you in real life. The real question is whether you value a random life above money. A moralist would say it is wrong. An assassin would say it’s right. Who’s to say which one is correct?
I believe that most would say the moralist is, simply because there are more moralists than “assassins” (let’s group them more generally under “immoralists” or something). We might as well all be cold-hearted killers and not even worry about having such a question asked to us. The thing is that many of us are moralists and value the life of anyone, even another person, even a random puppy, above even a million dollars. The “immoralists” do not. There is no right or wrong, just people you would like to be with and people you’d definitely want to keep out of your way.
If you truly mean what you say, I unfortunately have to tell you that I’d rather keep you out of my way. I wouldn’t want to risk getting killed over spilling beer over your sweater. Not to say that you would, but your arguments and statements made me think that you would be able to kill anyone who’s bringing you more marginal costs than benefits. Again, I do not say this is wrong, merely to me. To say this objectively, you are neither wrong or right. You are following your own views. The only restriction is law and it is based on moral values. That is why it is harder to accept the views of an “immoralist” than that of a moralist.
“Worthless unless they serve your pleasure”, in a way yes, however, this pleasure you speak makes it sound almost sinister. However, would you also grade such elements are comradely or friendship as pleasure? If so is this such an extreme view, as why would I wish to be surrounded by people which cause harm or wish to?
Sorry, should have been more clear. “Pleasure” in this case meaning that your so-called marginal benefits are higher than your so-called marginal costs. An example would be a friend. I don’t know what a friend does to you, but he could give you a good time. If you did not have that friend, you would not have a good time. The marginal benefit in this case is the good time you’re having. The marginal cost would be the time you’re spending. Since the former exceeds the latter, he would be one to give you “pleasure” (the word sounds strange, but it’s the only way I can describe it as a single word).
As to your last sentence, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to “not wish to be surrounded by those whose marginal cost for you is higher than the marginal benefit to you”, but I’m merely wondering if saying they are worthless is such an easy statement to make.
For all intensive purposes of this argument, if the reward (money) >> risk/pain (law, jail) then the whether we conduct a bad act becomes obscured (start taking the risk/pain away, and the situation shifts). However, this by no means, means that I am a cold hearted killing machine. The whole point to this is simply, given the appropriate motivation anyone can and will do terrible things. Take a look at the Saw movies (I haven’t I hate that crap.) Mostly through, my interest stems from how values, seem to disappear or fade given the appropriate motivation, and if anyone hesitated in saying yes, there is a good chance that you would conduct the act. All I have to say on this issue is this, killing a human over a animal is far more difficult, personally I don’t know if I could do it, but I’m going to say I can to pursue the argument at hand.
Right, this is what I meant with the marginal benefits and marginal costs. However, doing the “terrible things” you describe would, in my opinion, ask of someone to be out of their mind. I really doubt if you would be able to kill, no matter the return. Bad thing is that we will most probably never be able to hear the complete and correct thoughts and reasoning of a killer, a murderer. Why someone would kill is beyond me, my thoughts on this are that such a person would be, simplistically said, lost his mind.
Also, I am a 100% serious (this is a hypothetical! I think a lot of you are wrong, and are afraid to appear cold hearted, and some just try to appear overly cold), however, that says very little, as the fact remains animals die. Death isn’t a pleasant as such there must be a motivation for it, therefore, why would this motivation pleasant? What I tried to figure out is what mechanism takes place to allow this to take place, I thought it was one of apparent usefulness.
Animals die, but would you be able to be the helping hand? That’s the whole question. Saying this on a forum indeed says absolutely nothing. Some may try to appear overly cold, as others will try to appear overly moral, the point is that answering this question is entirely different from having it offered to you in real life. The real question is whether you value a random life above money. A moralist would say it is wrong. An assassin would say it’s right. Who’s to say which one is correct?
I believe that most would say the moralist is, simply because there are more moralists than “assassins” (let’s group them more generally under “immoralists” or something). We might as well all be cold-hearted killers and not even worry about having such a question asked to us. The thing is that many of us are moralists and value the life of anyone, even another person, even a random puppy, above even a million dollars. The “immoralists” do not. There is no right or wrong, just people you would like to be with and people you’d definitely want to keep out of your way.
If you truly mean what you say, I unfortunately have to tell you that I’d rather keep you out of my way. I wouldn’t want to risk getting killed over spilling beer over your sweater. Not to say that you would, but your arguments and statements made me think that you would be able to kill anyone who’s bringing you more marginal costs than benefits. Again, I do not say this is wrong, merely to me. To say this objectively, you are neither wrong or right. You are following your own views. The only restriction is law and it is based on moral values. That is why it is harder to accept the views of an “immoralist” than that of a moralist. “Worthless unless they serve your pleasure”, in a way yes, however, this pleasure you speak makes it sound almost sinister. However, would you also grade such elements are comradely or friendship as pleasure? If so is this such an extreme view, as why would I wish to be surrounded by people which cause harm or wish to?
Sorry, should have been more clear. “Pleasure” in this case meaning that your so-called marginal benefits are higher than your so-called marginal costs. An example would be a friend. I don’t know what a friend does to you, but he could give you a good time. If you did not have that friend, you would not have a good time. The marginal benefit in this case is the good time you’re having. The marginal cost would be the time you’re spending. Since the former exceeds the latter, he would be one to give you “pleasure” (the word sounds strange, but it’s the only way I can describe it as a single word).
As to your last sentence, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to “not wish to be surrounded by those whose marginal cost for you is higher than the marginal benefit to you”, but I’m merely wondering if saying they are worthless is such an easy statement to make.
For all intensive purposes of this argument, if the reward (money) >> risk/pain (law, jail) then the whether we conduct a bad act becomes obscured (start taking the risk/pain away, and the situation shifts). However, this by no means, means that I am a cold hearted killing machine. The whole point to this is simply, given the appropriate motivation anyone can and will do terrible things. Take a look at the Saw movies (I haven’t I hate that crap.) Mostly through, my interest stems from how values, seem to disappear or fade given the appropriate motivation, and if anyone hesitated in saying yes, there is a good chance that you would conduct the act. All I have to say on this issue is this, killing a human over a animal is far more difficult, personally I don’t know if I could do it, but I’m going to say I can to pursue the argument at hand.
Right, this is what I meant with the marginal benefits and marginal costs. However, doing the “terrible things” you describe would, in my opinion, ask of someone to be out of their mind. I really doubt if you would be able to kill, no matter the return. Bad thing is that we will most probably never be able to hear the complete and correct thoughts and reasoning of a killer, a murderer. Why someone would kill is beyond me, my thoughts on this are that such a person would be, simplistically said, lost his mind.
Also, I am a 100% serious (this is a hypothetical! I think a lot of you are wrong, and are afraid to appear cold hearted, and some just try to appear overly cold), however, that says very little, as the fact remains animals die. Death isn’t a pleasant as such there must be a motivation for it, therefore, why would this motivation pleasant? What I tried to figure out is what mechanism takes place to allow this to take place, I thought it was one of apparent usefulness.
Animals die, but would you be able to be the helping hand? That’s the whole question. Saying this on a forum indeed says absolutely nothing. Some may try to appear overly cold, as others will try to appear overly moral, the point is that answering this question is entirely different from having it offered to you in real life. The real question is whether you value a random life above money. A moralist would say it is wrong. An assassin would say it’s right. Who’s to say which one is correct?
I believe that most would say the moralist is, simply because there are more moralists than “assassins” (let’s group them more generally under “immoralists” or something). We might as well all be cold-hearted killers and not even worry about having such a question asked to us. The thing is that many of us are moralists and value the life of anyone, even another person, even a random puppy, above even a million dollars. The “immoralists” do not. There is no right or wrong, just people you would like to be with and people you’d definitely want to keep out of your way.
If you truly mean what you say, I unfortunately have to tell you that I’d rather keep you out of my way. I wouldn’t want to risk getting killed over spilling beer over your sweater. Not to say that you would, but your arguments and statements made me think that you would be able to kill anyone who’s bringing you more marginal costs than benefits. Again, I do not say this is wrong, merely to me. To say this objectively, you are neither wrong or right. You are following your own views. The only restriction is law and it is based on moral values. That is why it is harder to accept the views of an “immoralist” than that of a moralist.
*i disagree*
dude wats with the long post?
|
