# Would you assassinate a random child for 10,000,000$ ?



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Plumedoux said:


> I would assasinate the guy who give me this dilemma and rob his 10 000 000 dollars. Even if I can't have the money I will kill the guy because we don't need a useless piece of shit who like to trade human's life with money.


So you wouldn't kill the child but you'd kill the man? Interesting moral standard you have there... hmm.
Regardless, the OP noted there are no loop holes.

So either you kill the child or walk away moneyless. I'm guessing you're choosing to stay broke.

Thank you for your response!


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

I wouldn't do many things for money. Besides, _ 'there's no living with a killing. There's no going back from one.'_


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

I would not do it, but I will admit that some of my reasons for not killing are selfish.

1) I would lose all self-respect. I _know_ it would haunt my dreams and waking thoughts for the rest of my life. I would think of the poor child whose life I robbed and how I contributed to the sickness of evil in the world. It would be throwing away all the morals I built myself around and I simply wouldn't be able to live a single moment with myself after that.

2)I hate blood. Can't stand the sight of it and the horrifyingly sickening scene would make me pass out.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

Vast Silence said:


> So you wouldn't kill the child but you'd kill the man? Interesting moral standard you have there... hmm.
> Regardless, the OP noted there are no loop holes.
> 
> So either you kill the child or walk away moneyless. I'm guessing you're choosing to stay broke.
> ...


Well the OP didn't specify anything about how the money will be given, the only thing that he specified is "you must confirm the death". So I can speculate that a guy has the money with him and I have to confirm to him and so I kill the guy and take the money.
There is always a third option in every situation in reality.
But yeah I will not kill an innocent howerver the guy who gives the dilemma is dangerous (in this case trading human's value with money), so I will kill him.


----------



## master of time and space (Feb 16, 2017)

No way!

I could not take a human life for any reason

I may get rich but my conscience would terrorise me for the rest of my life

choosing not to take another humans life makes me richer than any money could.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

Hell yes.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Whenever I deeply desire to get some material thing, I am almost always immediately bored or unhappy when I finally receive it. The things I really want can't be bought. Offering me money for murder wouldn't be a temptation in the slightest. And the things I really want, like love, could not be given as a reward. It would be impossible because it would be a contradiction. You can't receive love from an unloving act.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> The money sounds nice, but no I wouldn't do it. I don't even know if I would consider it. I know myself well enough by this age to know I wouldn't have a moments peace for the rest of my life if I did it, and no amount of money would remedy that. Not even if I used the money to save a thousand other children.


Some wisdom around here. Nice.

I think that would be true for everyone, even those using "rationality" to justify it, would eventually feel bad. People are more afraid of being unintelligent than they are of being immoral, because they've been fed the idiocy that logic and emotion cannot possibly work together under the umbrella of "wisdom."

I also don't recall it ever being questioned where the money was coming from. The truth is if anyone was in that situation they'd know a lot more than nothing. The details need fleshed out before a question like that could yield useful data.

Especially knowing that little, it's a definite no. I'd need to know a lot more before killing a random child, even for that amount of money. I mean imagine if it were coming straight from Federal Reserve (private printing press) -- that amount of money would dilute itself...


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Whenever I deeply desire to get some material thing, I am almost always immediately bored or unhappy when I finally receive it. The things I really want can't be bought. Offering me money for murder wouldn't be a temptation in the slightest. And the things I really want, like love, could not be given as a reward. It would be impossible because it would be a contradiction. You can't receive love from an unloving act.


Even more wisdom. You and @BlackDog always seem to hit the nail on the head.

I feel like a more interesting hypothetical experiment would be along the lines of "money comes from x source, and the kid needs to die for y reason, for z amount of money."


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

No. I would not live peacefully any time thereafter.


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Whenever I deeply desire to get some material thing, I am almost always immediately bored or unhappy when I finally receive it. The things I really want can't be bought. Offering me money for murder wouldn't be a temptation in the slightest. And the things I really want, like love, could not be given as a reward. It would be impossible because it would be a contradiction. You can't receive love from an unloving act.


Yes! Preach! roud: Agree with you all the way.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Nah. $10MM isn't that hard to accumulate if you're intelligent, ambitious and hard working enough. It's even possible without having to rob or cheat anyone let alone murdering.

There's also the basic common sense question of why would anyone with any sense trust a person who would make such an offer but these types of questions aren't typically to be taken any deeper than superficially.


----------



## Hiraeth (Jan 2, 2015)

No, for various reasons. First of all, my conscience would become my own personal hell, and it would have no mercy on me. I know me, I couldn't live with that. I would either develop mental issues, kill myself or live a completely miserable life. Second, the older I get, the more I have a tendency towards minimalism and a simple life. The way I see life changes, and the things that really matter change as well. I don't need so much money. Third, it is against my nature. Fourth, I believe there's a balance of some sort in this world, and easy money earned in such ways won't bring you any happiness.


----------



## School (Apr 29, 2014)

So I went back and read the quora link. 

A painless death? By any method? Does that mean that no matter what method I choose, the child will feel no pain? Or does it mean that I have to choose some boring method that would just kill the child instantly? Because killing a child would be a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, and I don't want to waste the opportunity by just shooting it straight in the head or something like that. 

And I must confirm the death... ok, can I chop off the head and bring it with me?

Actually, as someone said: 


> "I think you’re overpricing it. Standard price for a hit has been $10K for decades.
> 
> Okay, maybe $20K because it’s a child.
> 
> ...


The more I think about it, the more I think it would be rather impractical earning that much money from it. Especially in that currency, because I would have no explanation of where I got it and almost no stores here would accept that currency. I'd do it for free instead, or for a little bit of money in the right currency. I know it sounds weird, but I'd rather have money I can actually use, instead of money I'd have to hide forever. 

The money part of this question isn't even that important; what I want the most is a big house far away from everyone, in the middle of the forest by a small lake. I would also need a car, and of course money for food etc. But all in all, it wouldn't be too much. I'm certain I will be able to either earn that much money on my own, or simply marry someone with that amount of money already (and then... get rid of them, if need be). 

The important part is the killing. You get to kill a child. It scares me how many people here say they wouldn't do it; they would waste the biggest opportunity of their life. It's funny how many of them say that they'd be able to earn that amount of money on their own, yet they are the kind of person who would waste a big opportunity. 

Anyway, this is the kind of scenarios I dream about. Sadly I will never actually get in a scenario like that. They would have no way to guarantee that I wouldn't get caught by the police, unless they were the police - but if the police wanted someone killed, they'd probably hire someone else, not just some random girl. It's fun to think about though.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

School said:


> So I went back and read the quora link.
> 
> A painless death? By any method? Does that mean that no matter what method I choose, the child will feel no pain? Or does it mean that I have to choose some boring method that would just kill the child instantly? Because killing a child would be a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, and I don't want to waste the opportunity by just shooting it straight in the head or something like that.
> 
> ...


_Opportunity_. Hehehehehehe.


----------



## aus2020 (Jun 29, 2011)

In the 2009 movie, 'The Box', a couple can gain $1 million by simply pressing a button, thereby causing the death of a person unknown to them. With every action, there are often always consequences. If you don't know the consequences of significant life changing actions, just don't do it.


----------



## Ghosties (Sep 7, 2014)

As someone who has grown up in poverty and done without money most of their life, whatever fate threw at me, even if my lifespan were shortened by 90%, at least I could enjoy what I had left.
It's really that simple for me.

I could go on with my justifications, but we all have our own reasons, so it's best to just leave it at that? 
At the end of the day I'd do it because I wanted the money.

Obviously the public answer is "no I'd never do what what's wrong with you" but you're right, OP, deep down, most people would do it. 

My favorite thing about these "would you ____ for $______?" questions is that these scenarios will never happen, andwatching everyone bicker over their view of "right" and "wrong" despite that obvious fact.
There's never a "right" answer to anything. 

Also, when actually put into a situation like that, most people saying "yes" would have second thoughts, anyway, or it'd at least be difficult.
And the people saying "no" would think about it, unless they've never hurt for money in their life.

Ah, yes, nothing is ever so black and white.


----------



## versace (Jul 27, 2016)

Glad to hear you all have good morals, but I wouldn't mind never having to work a day in my life and being able to buy whatever I want. So the answer is...


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

I'm curious to see if age or type correlates with whether or not one would choose to kill the child in the scenario


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

WTF No


----------



## UraniaIsis (Nov 26, 2014)

Oh 'ell f#[email protected] no! $10,000,000 is only worth what people are willing to acknowledge it for. Not to mention with inflation and deflation, physical $10,000,000 isn't always worth what it represents. Also, that's why I'm not in the military. I'd be too hesitant to pull the trigger. My "momma bear" instinct won't allow it. Is there pretentiousness out there? Absolutely. It's probably safe to say at least a good 3/4ths of the human population are maintaining a public image and that mask would drop in a heartbeat if conditions were ripe for them to get away with something cruel. The insane run the insane asylum known as Earth. But I'm a bit misanthropic towards a majority of adult humans anyways.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

If I could somehow use that money to save more lives (or put it to better use than the child I'm assassinating) and take a small amount for my troubles (a couple of grand) then yeah.


----------



## Burning_Daylight (Mar 6, 2017)

No. A thousand fucking times no. You can take that money and shove it straight up your ass, as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as men and women in the military volunteering to go kill strangers...well that's on them. And that's precisely why I didn't join the military, although I considered it at one time. I have absolutely no interest in killing anyone. Ever. End of story. PARTICULARLY for a bunch of fucking MONEY!

I'd rather live the rest of my life in abject poverty, subsisting on bugs and treebark, than kill some kid, thank you very much.

"Where's the downside?" Jesus jumped up fucking christ.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

It's interesting how everyone's saying no. I'm not sure if I really believe them or not but it's still interesting. I'd do it in a heartbeat and not feel guilty in the slightest. Nobody in this world ever felt guilty about hurting me so why should I show this world more kindness then it ever showed me? I only mention donating some of it to charity as a logical moral justification but really I wouldn't think twice either way. I have no emotional aversion to killing another person.


----------



## Burning_Daylight (Mar 6, 2017)

Ghosties said:


> As someone who has grown up in poverty and done without money most of their life, whatever fate threw at me, even if my lifespan were shortened by 90%, at least I could enjoy what I had left.
> It's really that simple for me.
> 
> I could go on with my justifications, but we all have our own reasons, so it's best to just leave it at that?
> ...


 @Ghosties I gotta disagree with you there. There absolutely IS a right answer to this question, and it's not the one where you kill a strange kid and get a shitload of fuckin money for it.

There aren't any shades of grey here. You're either willing to murder somebody for money, or you're not. This was not a question like, "Would you kill Hitler as a child for ten million bucks? Or shit, just for fun?" There isn't any context. This is a question that doesn't reveal anything except the character and moral code of the person who answers it.

And the answer that actually has me just utterly flabbergasted is this one "I get to kill..." You GET TO, motherfucker? YOU FUCKING GET TO!!!!????? Like you've been wanting to for a long time, you just never had a good enough reason? What the fuck!?!?!

EDIT: I grew up in poverty and spent my early twenties in absolute poverty. I was stealing condiments from the local Jack in the Box, for chrissakes. And I STILL would not hesitate to kick the guy who offered me the deal right in the fuckin ass.


----------



## deviants (Dec 16, 2016)

Duh. How do you want them dead? 
Gunned down? Stabbed? Suffocated? Poisoned? Hanged? Or do I get to pick?


----------



## deviants (Dec 16, 2016)

LittleDreamer said:


> I'm curious to see if age or type correlates with whether or not one would choose to kill the child in the scenario


I was just thinking this, perhaps another thread should be started and we should ask a persons type and if they would or wouldn't do it? Hmmmmm I really want to know if theres any pattern here or not now...


EDIT: Upon stalking some profiles, it seems an overwhelming majority who said yes are NTs (and most of these NTs were xNTPs) lmao, and the overwhelming majority who said no are NFs (just from the people who posted in the last few pages that I stalked.) There was like one INTP that said hell no, and one INFP that said hell yes however lol.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

There are situations where I'd be willing to live with the guilt, but fulfilling my personal luxury wants isn't one.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

SolonsWarning said:


> It's interesting how everyone's saying no. I'm not sure if I really believe them or not but it's still interesting.


Funny, I was thinking I'm not sure if I believe the people saying yes. 



> Nobody in this world ever felt guilty about hurting me so why should I show this world more kindness then it ever showed me?


Are you sure about that?


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Burning_Daylight said:


> [MENTION=155418]
> EDIT: *I grew up in poverty* and spent my early twenties in absolute poverty. I was stealing condiments from the local Jack in the Box, for chrissakes.* And I STILL would not hesitate to kick the guy who offered me the deal right in the fuckin ass*.


Same.


----------



## str00dles (Mar 11, 2017)

The correct answer is...


----------



## Burning_Daylight (Mar 6, 2017)

deviants said:


> I was just thinking this, perhaps another thread should be started and we should ask a persons type and if they would or wouldn't do it? Hmmmmm I really want to know if theres any pattern here or not now...
> 
> 
> EDIT: Upon stalking some profiles, it seems an overwhelming majority who said yes are NTs (and most of these NTs were xNTPs) lmao, and the overwhelming majority who said no are NFs (just from the people who posted in the last few pages that I stalked.) There was like one INTP that said hell no, and one INFP that said hell yes however lol.


 @deviants, I'm curious now myself. This question certainly does butt right up against my personal values. And money to me doesn't mean jack shit. There are a million ways to make money, and murdering anonymous children isn't one that particularly appeals to me. haha.

So to me, this question doesn't even come close to offering an actual moral dilemma. But something like, "Would you kill one kid to save six others?" may have. Or "Would you kill some strange kid to save your sister?"

I'm still not sure the answer would necessarily be yes. I'd probably have to be faced with the actual scenario before I was able to commit to a course of action. haha. But killing a strange kid just for money? Just not gonna fuckin happen.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> Funny, I was thinking I'm not sure if I believe the people saying yes.


Why would you think that? We already live in a world where we don't think twice about making decisions which imperil the lives of others. Tens of thousands of people die every year in the US because they can't afford medical care while we go on swooning over the rich and famous whose opulent lifestyles put the poor in the grave. I see limited moral difference between not acting to save a person and acting to harm them. The effect is the exact same regardless of the cause. Sure there are plenty of moral codes to argue otherwise, but they're not what my moral code argues.

_"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do."_
*-Voltaire*



BlackDog said:


> Are you sure about that?


Well obviously I can't be sure what goes on inside another person's head, but they've certainly never expressed regret so I see no reason to assume the best of those whose actions are the worst. I've seen no evidence in my life that people who hurt others ever regret it and I've seen plenty that suggests they relish it. I spent a year of my life in jail for charges that were eventually dismissed. Do you think the police care whether you're guilty or not? No, they don't; they're just doing their job. Do you think jail guards care whether you're guilty or not? No, they don't; they're just doing their job. Do you think HR managers care you were innocent when they deny you for a job because you were in jail? No, they'd don't; they're just doing their job. I lost a year of my life, ~$250,000 in income and the ability to peruse my previous profession (working at nuclear plants) and nobody who was involved in any of that cares in the slightest. For the most part they all think they're good people doing good for the world. You know what happens when your case is dismissed? Do you think the guards say, "oh, I'm sorry for how I treated you"? Nope. They say, "you're lucky, you got away with it". They don't know anything about the case of course, they just assume everyone is guilty because it lets them not feel guilty about everyone they hurt. And that's the good ones, the bad ones take great joy in bossing other people around; they wouldn't feel bad either way. This is why I'm so against pre-trial detention and custodial sentences for minor crimes. Being in jail makes a person a worse human being and the better of a person you were before the worse it will make you because it turns all your naive preconceptions of how the world works completely on their head.

It's more than just that though, jail is only an extreme example. Everything else in life is the same, just far less blatantly unfair and unempathetic. I'm not saying a girl who broke me heart should feel bad about it of course, but at the same time every pain we experience makes it harder to believe this is a good world we live in or to care about anyone else. Just look at all the little angsty internet virgins complaining about life or about women or about whatever else. It's not easy to want something desperately and to know you're never going to get it. I try to do the right things, but it's just not that easy to be a good person when nobody cares about you one way or another.

_"At this point of his effort man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world."_
*-Albert Camus*


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

No.

There's only so much money I can spend in one day. No need to earn it all at once.

You'd have to think of something more convincing than that. There's plenty of morally bankrupt bastards I could assassinate if I needed money and still be doing everyone some good.

What in this world do I need enough to throw away humanity?


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

SolonsWarning said:


> Why would you think that? We already live in a world where we don't think twice about making decisions which imperil the lives of others. Tens of thousands of people die every year in the US because they can't afford medical care while we go on swooning over the rich and famous whose opulent lifestyles put the poor in the grave. I see limited moral difference between not acting to save a person and acting to harm them. The effect is the exact same regardless of the cause. Sure there are plenty of moral codes to argue otherwise, but they're not what my moral code argues.
> 
> _"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do."_
> *-Voltaire*
> ...


Thanks for sharing your story, you surely seen what lies behind the mask of goodness that humans like to wear. Everything you said in what I put in bold makes me think about cognitive dissonance. The way I see it is that they experiment mental discomfort because their expectations, beliefs didn't match the reality, their expectations being that they think that everyone in prison are guilty. So when someone is dismissed, this create a mental discomfort in certain guard (the one who hold this belief and that you call good one), so they reduce, erase this dissonance by rewrite the reality by believing that the guy is guilty even if his innocence have been proven. And in the end give this kind of response "you're lucky, you got away with it".


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

Plumedoux said:


> Thanks for sharing your story, we surely seen what lies behind the mask of goodness that they like to wear. Everything you said in what I put in bold makes me think about cognitive dissonance. The way I see it is that they experiment mental discomfort because their expectation, beliefs didn't match the reality, their expecation being that they think that everyone in prison are guilty. So when someone is dismissed, this create a mental discomfort in certain guard (the one who hold this belief and that you call good one), so they reduce, erase this dissonance by rewrite the reality by believing that the guy is guilty even if his innocence have been proven. And give this kind of response "you're lucky, you got away with it".


It's a huge problem with the police. They're supposed to be objective of course, but they are only human and so they don't want to feel like they arrested the wrong person. Even in those cases where you see a person has been cleared later by DNA evidence the police and DA often keep protesting that they are guilty because they don't want to admit to making a mistake.


----------



## November Rose (Jan 16, 2017)

*never! *


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

No. The price will be the degeneration of your own mind and soul alongside killing a child who might have given people the next cure for cancer--but if they didn't, life is the most important thing in this world. Besides I also think many people wouldn't. I am a cynic and have seen some cruel things and have heard some cruel things, but I think most people even criminals have codes about children. It also isn't the same as pushing a button and not seeing the side-effects. Shooting in person? Yeah. I don't think most people would.


----------



## warxzawa (Aug 19, 2016)

LittleDreamer said:


> I'm curious to see if age or type correlates with whether or not one would choose to kill the child in the scenario


i'm curious about this too, someone should make a poll (at least with type) 
for some reason i correlate it more with enneagram though


----------



## JayShambles (Aug 9, 2016)

The question should be "would you kill your own child for 10mil"?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

warxzawa said:


> i'm curious about this too, someone should make a poll (at least with type)
> for some reason i correlate it more with enneagram though



After thinking about it, I agree that enneagram might correlate more. I don't know how to make the polls so I probably won't be the one to start it:laughing:


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

SolonsWarning said:


> It's more than just that though, jail is only an extreme example. Everything else in life is the same, just far less blatantly unfair and unempathetic. I'm not saying a girl who broke me heart should feel bad about it of course, *but at the same time every pain we experience makes it harder to believe this is a good world we live in or to care about anyone else.* Just look at all the little angsty internet virgins complaining about life or about women or about whatever else. It's not easy to want something desperately and to know you're never going to get it. I try to do the right things, but it's just not that easy to be a good person when nobody cares about you one way or another.


Well, coming from someone who was molested as a kid, I can say I see goodness throughout the world. 

I even see goodness in you. Despite you saying that you'd kill a child for personal gain, you harbor all of these intense feelings toward injustice. You feel the pain you've experienced, and rather than chalking it up to subjective morality, you've declared that what they did was wrong. That's because you feel a sense of wrong and right. You understand goodness.

I agree, though: it is hard to care about doing the right then when you have no one that cares about you one way or another. Isolation, and disconnection with other emotional beings can be a hardship one shouldn't have to go through.


----------



## MaggieMay (Dec 27, 2014)

No. I couldn't. And I'm not full of shit. 
I value human life more than money, apparently that's not as common as I had hoped. 
Something like that will change you in ways you will not be able to repent for or clear your conscience. I have no doubt in my mind it would haunt you for the rest of your life and the money would render useless trying to fill that void. It's blood money and every penny would be cursed anyway, in my eyes. I'd sooner kill the people who set a scenario like that up and die trying to get the poor kid out of there. There might not be physical consequences but there sure as hell would be some mental/emotional consequences. 

F**k cruel human beings. 

:angry:

That's just me though. I can appreciate honest answers, I just pray that's never an actual scenario for anyone. There's always strings attached or at least one loop hole.


----------



## lookslikeiwin (May 6, 2014)

10 million dollars doesn't sound especially appealing to me in this scenario. I don't like keeping secrets. I'm not a "greater good" person. It wouldn't feel rewarding.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Yeah, not everyone cares about money that much.

Yes, from what I've seen in the world, there absolutely are people out there who would kill someone for a vast amount of money...I've seen people swarm those who were perceived to be wealthy as they lay sick, I've seen entire families ruined over inheritance disputes. I've seen people beaten up and robbed for a few extra dollars. I've watched people's lives destroyed so some idiot can make an extra percentage point of corporate profit. It's hard not to be cynical about people sometimes, when you've lived through such things (all of these come from personal experience).

I'm not gonna give you any crap about "doing the right thing" if that's what you're thinking. I loathe that phrase, and I won't use it. But I will say that there are people out there for whom money isn't important. As amazing as that sometimes seems, I really think there are not (I personally don't give two shits about obtaining lots of money in life).

One example I can think of is Osama bin Laden--he had how high a bounty on his head? 10 million? 100 million? I can no longer remember, but rest assured that the amount offered would get you farther in that region of the world than 10 million would in the USA. I don't seem to recall anyone pulling the trigger on him until the US Special Forces came to do it themselves.

There are many other examples of this. Money isn't everything to everyone.

So I think some people, anyway, would not pull the trigger.


----------



## SolonsWarning (Jan 2, 2017)

I don't think anyone cares about money in itself, it's what that money can buy that matters. And I don't mean a fancy mansion with a Porsche out front either, I mean freedom for spending 40 years of your life working just to get by with one or two vacations a year as your only escape from the monotony of "wage slavery".


----------



## Ghosties (Sep 7, 2014)

Burning_Daylight said:


> @Ghosties I gotta disagree with you there. There absolutely IS a right answer to this question, and it's not the one where you kill a strange kid and get a shitload of fuckin money for it.
> 
> There aren't any shades of grey here. You're either willing to murder somebody for money, or you're not. This was not a question like, "Would you kill Hitler as a child for ten million bucks? Or shit, just for fun?" There isn't any context. This is a question that doesn't reveal anything except the character and moral code of the person who answers it.
> 
> ...


With all the profanity, I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
You can disagree with me without losing your temper.

I never said "I get to", I don't really have a particular desire for violence, so at least don't yell at me for something someone else said.

It comes down to pros and cons for me, personally. That's all.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

What I want to know is why the OP seemed so invested in the answer. There are better ways to learn why and how the historical record came to be filled with immoral acts. Actually, I think the question itself contains un-examined assumptions (e.g. the focus on risk-reward incentives - did the subjects of Milgram Experiment deliver the lethal shock for cash?) about how evil happens, though I don't claim to be an expert on the subject myself.

I suspect the OP is looking for some sort of confirmation or re-assurance about his views on 'human nature', in which case he should head over to one of the NF sub-forums to pose this question directly.


----------



## heymoon (Nov 26, 2016)

No. I feel dirty after I kill teeny tiny spiders, I can't imagine killing a whole person. And I've survived this far without having ten million dollars, I think I can manage moving forward without it, too.


----------



## sullenriot (Jul 11, 2016)

Yes. And that's not because I'd want a big house. As previously stated in the comments above me, money buys freedom and I would want my freedom. Morality, if it even is an actual thing, is incredibly subjective. Would I sacrifice a random kid I know nothing about and therefore have no emotional connection to for my freedom? Yes. Kids die every day, why would I feel bad for that child any more than I do for dead strangers I hear on the news every day?

Would I sacrifice my mom, dad, close friend etc? I'd have to think about that one but even then I can't give a definite no as I don't think anyone's life, including mine, is as valuable or sacred as we've been made to think. And every pain can fade, be forgotten or ignored. I think for that answer I'd have to weigh the pain over losing someone I love against the satisfaction and free time that much money would give me.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

deviants said:


> Duh. How do you want them dead?
> Gunned down? Stabbed? Suffocated? Poisoned? Hanged? Or do I get to pick?


Now there is a mind I would love to pick! 
*
At Everyone* questioning the reason for the thread:
I simply wanted to see what people would say under the guise of anonymity.
Nobody said they would go through with it when their names where public under the original post on quora. 

So I wanted to see if in-fact I was crazy for thinking it was a no-brainer YES answer or whether there were others that agreed and simply didn't feel comfortable advertising such answers publicly in association with their real-life names. 

God knows there are plenty of close-minded people that would google your name, see that answer, and harrass/make your life difficult over it.

I'm glad to see a *VARIETY* of responses because that is what I'm after, *HONESTY*.

There is no right or wrong answer because each person is free to choose in life. I'm not here to judge anyone but only to hear their voices. 

@Burning_Daylight I would appreciate it if you dialed it down a bit. We've heard your response to the question and respect your choice. Please don't attack other people for their choices. Let's keep it civil. Thank you.


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Of course I would, I mean I do have morals but $10 million bucks is $10 million bucks. 

And even if you were to look at it logically, with that $10 million you could help raise 40 kids, food, clothes, toys all included. Or you could spend that money on funding a socialist movement. :biggrin:


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

If I had to personally kill the child myself with a weapon, certainly not.

If all I had to do was press a button and somewhere someone would die, then it would be a lot harder to resist. But seeing as the question involves inflicting personal violence upon an innocent in cold blood for personal gain, the answer is no. Ten million is not worth the guilt.

That's not to say it's above any price tag. For ten billion I would think about it and for ten trillion I would hardly hesitate. But that's because the good that could be wrought with that amount of money outweighs the child's life and my soul. Ten million is not enough to leave a mark on the world worthy of that sacrifice.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

The price is but a lot higher than the child's life. A child is never just a _random child_. You say yes, you kill my child, hence make me suffer. I say yes, I kill your child. If I killed your child and you did not change your mind to wish you had never had my mindset, then I guess it's only then you are not being a hypocrite.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

lolalalah said:


> The price is but a lot higher than the child's life. A child is never just a _random child_. You say yes, you kill my child, hence make me suffer. I say yes, I kill your child. If I killed your child and you did not change your mind to wish you had never had my mindset, then I guess it's only then you are not being a hypocrite.


A jaguar eats a python. A python eats a jaguar. Are they hypocrites? Or is morality not universal but local, focused around subjects?


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> A jaguar eats a python. A python eats a jaguar. Are they hypocrites? Or is morality not universal but local, focused around subjects?


If both the jaguar and the python have a view of life that is clearly defined to them and if they are actually aware of how they'd rather not be eaten, then yep, they are.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

lolalalah said:


> If both the jaguar and the python have a view of life that is clearly defined to them and if they are actually aware of how they'd rather not be eaten, then yep, they are.


No they aren't... You're demonizing the concept of competition. Competition is vital and life-giving.

That's like saying it's hypocritical to win because when you win you make someone else lose and you didn't want to lose.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Dante Scioli said:


> Competition is vital and life-giving.


How very ironic, hehe.

Look, 


Dante Scioli said:


> Or is morality not universal but local, focused around subjects?


what did the _jaguar eats a python_ have to do with humans again?


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> No they aren't... You're demonizing the concept of competition. Competition is vital and life-giving.
> 
> That's like saying it's hypocritical to win because when you win you make someone else lose and you didn't want to lose.


Kind of yes; kind of no.

Being hypocritical is not based on feeling, but based on views.

For instance, not "wanting" to lose, and then competing against someone else does not make one hypocritical.

Someone believing that it is wrong to compete, because it is wrong to create a situation where there will be a loser, and them competing against someone else, would make them a hypocrite. 

So looking back at the jaguar, if he animal had a personal view that one shouldn't eat another, then they'd have to follow that to be consistent.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Antipode said:


> So looking back at the jaguar, if he animal had a personal view that *one shouldn't eat another*, then they'd have to follow that to be consistent.


True, but that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is this:


lolalalah said:


> If both the jaguar and the python have a view of life that is clearly defined to them and if they are actually aware of how *they'd rather not be eaten*, then yep, they are.


So their moral position is not "one shouldn't eat another" but rather "one shouldn't eat _me_." I'm saying you _can_ believe "one shouldn't eat me" while going around eating other people who believe the same thing. That doesn't make you a hypocrite.



I brought this up because I was confused about the moral position lolalalah was taking up in this post:


lolalalah said:


> The price is but a lot higher than the child's life. A child is never just a _random child_. You say yes, you kill my child, hence make me suffer. I say yes, I kill your child. If I killed your child and you did not change your mind to wish you had never had my mindset, then I guess it's only then you are not being a hypocrite.


I wasn't sure what she was saying exactly here so I asked my follow-up question to try to clarify.

Edit: It sounded like she was saying the rational answer to the prisoner's dilemma is cooperate/cooperate when it's really defect/defect.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> Who knows? Maybe they're John Connor and Skynet is trying to have you assassinate him.


I was just curious because assassination is usually used to denote the killing of a public figure. Depending on what the child was the killing may be justified or may not be.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Vast Silence said:


> @SilverFalcon
> 
> I mean... you can forego the offer and keep doing your thing.
> 
> ...


It was never about my choice (that was just example), it was about clarifying misconceptions.

I am afraid you are not understanding what logical argument means.

Logical argument means:


Free Dictionary said:


> *logical argument* - a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; *the methodical process of logical reasoning*; "I can't follow your line of reasoning"



* *
















Your assertion that I bring feelings into logical argument is simply false. My argument is solely depending only on principles that are based on universal logic. This is why I recommended to read Kant, a rationalist philosopher. At least check what universalizability means.
Wanting buckets of money is no more objective or logical value than to live without contradiction in conception. 

Your reference is meaningless, because it doesn't even touch the issue. We are discussing a very general concept with this case. Basically we discuss whether you are self-legislated civilized being able to live in harmony with others in freedom or a beast that need to be controlled from doing harm because you are more motivated by greed than generalized principles. 

So who is bringing feelings to logical argument? All you bring to argument is your evaluation of money versus other's life. Just because you fancy yourself sociopath does not mean that greed is not a feeling, just that you lack empathy.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

@SilverFalcon

Wait... so let me get this straight:

1) You think greed is a feeling.
2) You think you're more than just another animal. 

I'm done here and will no longer reply to you.
Have a good day.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Can you pay me in GBP?

After all the child is only going to grow up depressed in a patriarchal society, oppressed at every opportunity by evil faceless corperations.

So I may as well do child a favour and get paid for it.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Vast Silence said:


> @SilverFalcon
> 
> Wait... so let me get this straight:
> 
> ...


Are those two premises so controversial that you feel triggered or have your logical argumentation capacity dried out?:tongue:

1) What is greed if not feeling?
2) Would you kill a human being for meat or skin?


----------



## CrystallineSheep (Jul 8, 2012)

You would have to be pretty dim-witted, superficial and incredibly materialistic to think money has that much value. Currency is an economical construct that is supposedly there to help our society prosper and be productive. It has no value without its context and it is only a means to achieve specific goals. I don't know why you are so adamant that we would kill a child for money. 

And for people arguing you could save more children than one..that is a bullshit argument too. Charity does not solve our humanitarian issues. You have to overthrow systems and governments for that to happen. It is not worth killing someone at all and even so I don't believe it is ever called for to kill anybody to save somebody else- especially if they don't consent to it? Nobody owes anyone else life.


----------



## Razorsharp (Jun 23, 2016)

No chance. I intend to leave the world having lived a good a life providing value to the people I have met. Money? I have what I need to do most of what I like. Extreme luxury is decadence in my book and I dont want it.

I would not kill innocents, for any price. 
@
OP, are you a follower of Ayn Rand by any chance? A sociopath? If so, your assumption of everyone elses choice makes sense.


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung (Dec 25, 2015)

No...


----------



## la_revolucion (May 16, 2013)

Are they an orphan? Will anyone miss that they are gone? 

This is a tough one... I have a huge conscious and I would worry that I could never live with myself. But if I knew I would never get caught and no one missed the kid... Let me tell you, 10 million dollars would go a long way in giving my own family financial security and stability. We could all live our lives in comfort and with much less stress.

Laid off from your job? No worries. You have 10 mill. Want to buy a modest home in an expensive area because of the great schools for the kids? No worries. You have 10 mill. Your kid wants to go to college? Has an emergency medical bill? Less worries. You have 10 mill! 

Sad world, but money is king to survival. Especially if others are depending on you. Like your own children...


----------



## sicksadworlds (May 4, 2015)

la_revolucion said:


> Are they an orphan? Will anyone miss that they are gone?


Why are these questions relevant to determine whether it's OK or not to kill someone? If the answer is no, are you going to tell me that it's OK to kill them? Because of what other people feel about this child? Other people's feelings or they being under a circumstance they didn't bring it on themselves are now important to determine if a human life is worth? This is bullshit to me.


----------



## Librarian (Jun 14, 2016)

People have tried to kill people for vast amounts of money countless times before. It's called "against the law." If i commit this act how am I better than them? Really. People have taken the life of another for less selfish reasons but they still wind up in jail and most are grateful for a law system that protects them from murder.

HOWEVER, there is so much more to this dilemma than one might be led to believe. Consider:

-This money could save the lives of many human beings, against one child. How does one justify this? You have a choice in this scenario and one or the other has to go. What'll it be?

-This cash may go to someone Else far worse than you.

-A lot of people agree they couldn't live with themselves after this, but that is a bit selfish, meaning you will make a selfish choice no matter what.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Librarian said:


> People have tried to kill people for vast amounts of money countless times before. It's called "against the law." If i commit this act how am I better than them? Really. People have taken the life of another for less selfish reasons but they still wind up in jail and most are grateful for a law system that protects them from murder.
> 
> HOWEVER, there is so much more to this dilemma than one might be led to believe. Consider:
> 
> ...


Could you strangle a baby Hitler whilst looking him in the eyes.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Is it selfish to avoid something because of the guilt you would experience?


----------



## Allonsy (Mar 30, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> Is it selfish to avoid something because of the guilt you would experience?


Yes, because the intention to kill is still there, and the only thing stopping you is your well-being.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Allonsy said:


> Yes, because the intention to kill is still there, and the only thing stopping you is your well-being.


Interesting. Thats not how I interpret guilt. I feel guilt when I know I've done something wrong, more specifically when I have wronged somebody. When I say I would live the rest of my life feeling guilty for killing a helpless child what I mean is that I would spend the rest of my life mourning for the wrong I've done to him. I think that necessarily requires a regard for the wellbeing of the other. 

If I do not care about the fate of the child, then whence comes the guilt?


----------



## nam (Feb 18, 2017)

Of course but only blacks and arabs, and jews!

And my answer is no. Because "Life is sacred"


----------



## Allonsy (Mar 30, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> Interesting. Thats not how I interpret guilt. I feel guilt when I know I've done something wrong, more specifically when I have wronged somebody. When I say I would live the rest of my life feeling guilty for killing a helpless child what I mean is that I would spend the rest of my life mourning for the wrong I've done to him. I think that necessarily requires a regard for the wellbeing of the other.
> 
> If I do not care about the fate of the child, then whence comes the guilt?


But if the motivation was to kill for the "greater good" but then you'd feel guilty because you did something immoral, then it is still selfish since the feeling begins and ends with you.

The most ethical way is to refuse to kill because you know it's wrong. 

But i also wonder if there is a point where the external world internalizes and everything that happens inside you is influeced by it, so nothing could possibly be "selfish" or "egoist".


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Allonsy said:


> But if the motivation was to kill for the "greater good" but then you'd feel guilty because you did something immoral, then it is still selfish since the feeling begins and ends with you.
> 
> The most ethical way is to refuse to kill because you know it's wrong.
> 
> But i also wonder if there is a point where the external world internalizes and everything that happens inside you is influeced by it, so nothing could possibly be "selfish" or "egoist".


Let your conscience be your guide. I think that was Jimminy Cricket? Lol. 

I might not let someone burn my leg because it hurts, but the pain exists as a mechanism to help me avoid harm. In that case am I rejecting the pain or the harm? The pain first and foremost, but the harm in a more ultimate sense. I think guilt is similar.


----------



## Librarian (Jun 14, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> Could you strangle a baby Hitler whilst looking him in the eyes.


I'd feel more remorse if I didn't kill the one to one day grow up to be Hitler. This man killed so many, tore the lives apart of so many, put fear into the hearts of so many that everyone knows his name, and worse, what he did.

I would surely be affected by it for the rest of my life but sometimes you have to put others above yourself, ESPECIALLY in such a scenario. If you (or others) couldn't handle doing it that's fine, I get it, but I would do the deed for you, in front of you if need be. It would have to be done; life doesn't always give you a black and white decision.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Wiz said:


> Most are selfish as in: "I wouldn't do it because *I would feel bad*".


I would love to become your teacher one day, and teach you the actual meaning of what's being selfish, and what's not, in a very direct and painful way. Saying yes to the answer is the selfish thing (whether or not being selfish is good or bad). You would choose your own well-being over that of someone else's, in the worst way possible: you prefer to upgrade your life at the cost of someone's actual life. Now, I know and have read saying yes to this is not an upgrade to everyone, thankfully, while there are people with a certain amount of empathy and all, whoms life will actually downgrade from this, while they know what's more important than money, from which I am one.

Feeling bad for doing something extremely selfish like this (harming someone else to upgrade your own life = the definition of being selfish) is actually that what make certain people avoid acting in a selfish way, thanks to the ability of feeling guilt, and having empathy, things from which I know other certain people lack having. 

I don't choose to be very empathic and all (if anything I feel too much guilt for my liking), nor do the less empathic and more psychotic people do. Despite this knowledge, there are quite some posts in here that sickens me, which I think is only natural because it's in so much conflict with my perception of life; what I believe is good, and what's not. It simply goes completely against my strongly presented feelings.



halfamazing said:


> Smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is just as bad as killing a random child. The amount of suffering and grief a person may put his/her family through, as a result of all the medical conditions or death, is unconscionable.


Basicly you're saying it's best to kill everyone who suffers in life. I disagree with that. People can still live their lives, despite that, and possibly still in a good way. There are ways to overcome and improve life, and most people tend to choose life over death despite suffering, which actually is a crucial and inevitable part of life. It's something one will learn a lot from too.



Vast Silence said:


> Given the chance I honestly believe with all my heart that every single human on this planet would jump at the opportunity and not think twice before pulling the trigger.


Seems like you have trouble understanding and/or realizing other people can be very different from you when it comes to things like this. I spot a massive lack of empathy in you when reading your sentences, but that's not your choice, nor is it mine to have a lot from it, so I won't attack you for it. What I just want to say, it may explain how come you couldn't believe other people seeing this so different from you.



Vast Silence said:


> I dont really believe in Morality.


After reading this I didn't expect you to be listed as an INFP, while I thought they believe in morality. Unless I'm mistaken and/or there are exceptions possible? Anywho, morality does exist, perhaps not in all of us, but it exists, and in quite some people too. If you don't feel it, or have it, then that's simply how you are, but that doesn't mean this apply to everyone.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> You are asked to kill a human child for 10,000,000$.
> Hypothetically, of course.
> You will not be caught.
> Nobody else will know.
> ...


NO! An absolute NO! I wouldn't even entertain the thought. That you would makes me want to say things like this to you: Money is the root of all evil. A fool and his money are soon parted. There is more to life than money. And the military is not about killing a random child.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Given the chance to travel back in time and kill Hitler as an infant, I don't think I'd take it. Not because it would be too hard to murder an infant - though whether it's ever okay to punish someone for crimes they've yet to commit is a valid question in and of itself - but because it poses the same problem as any strictly utilitarian ethical conundrum. Ie, the impossibility of omniscience. 

The truth is that I have no idea whether the world would be a better place without Hitler. I don't know that if he had never lived there wouldn't have been a Second World War, or that the Holocaust would have been avoided. I can't know that his actions didn't serve as an example for the world which subsequently kept evil in check. It's one thing to stop a man from committing a terrible act in the moment but quite another to retroactively decide the world would have been better off without him. I think at some point we must leave the God-playing to God. 

"Do what we may to shape the mysterious stuff of which our lives are composed, the dark threads of our destiny will always re-emerge."


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

@AAADD Edison

I'm biploar so I usually come up with extreme arguments one way or another. But I don't have any trouble seeing someone turn the money down. What I meant was that EVERYONE turning the money down was unlikely. That's what prompted me taking the question from a public place like quora to an anonymous site like PerC. 

Just because I can logically reason my choice into killing the person doesn't mean I don't empathize. Not everyone views life as a sacred thing. Some of us (apparently quite a few more than I expected honestly) don't value it at all. 

To me the difference between living and dying every single second is pure chance. One day probability will not be on your side and you'll somehow end. Capitalizing on that probability isn't really as "monstrous" as people make it sound. At least not to me anyhow. 

I view all life equally. Killing billions of chickens a day to me is no less "morally heinous" than killing billions of people everyday. I mean what if suddenly human beings were chickens to some other species?

Being human myself doesn't affect my judgement. 
@starfairy

Militaries all around the world murder humans in the thousands. Whether their cause is just or not is completely dependent on which side the viewer is on. Imagine if all those missiles and bombs the US military drops on other nations suddenly dropped on American soil. Not so fun to watch anymore is it? It's all about view point. I like to keep myself on the outside and look at all sides of the argument. Hence posting the question here. 
@BlackDog

I can see what you mean. My INTP ex said the same thing. What if by killing this person you sent the world into a horrible future. 
Mostly your argument is simply shifting blame away from yourself. Because if the person survived and became a horrible monster then its not your fault. If they survived and were a good person then you have relief that you made the right decision.

I can respect that though. Wanting to keep your hands clean is well.... probably the most admirable thing a person can do right?

As far as hitler goes, I firmly believe without war science would slow down to a grinding halt. Yes we made a ton of bad military advancements like the nuclear bomb but we also made nuclear powerplants possible because of the war. The jet engine, intercontinental air transport... satelites.... etc.

I agree with you though, if I take the entire planet as a system, who am I to make such a selfish choice? To alter the course of said system without knowing how it all works together.

Hmm... :|
That's a really good argument @BlackDog rest in peace hypothetical money... I think you just won me over to the non-killing side.
Thanks


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

@Vast Silence So are you equating soldiers as sellouts doing it for the money?


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

starfairy said:


> @Vast Silence So are you equating soldiers as sellouts doing it for the money?


Yup. Why do you think most kids join the army? Its not for a noble cause.
College kids do it because they want the army to pay off their loans and high schoolers do it because they can't afford college and its their only way out of a boring 8-5 job. 

That's doing it for the money. You don't fly 7000 miles away from home to murder people in defense of your nation.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> Yup.


that is sad. just to even consider killing a child for money, you must hate your life conditions. if that's not a motivating factor, than it's probably sociopathy or something. i mean, i'm not trying to judge your choice or anything so if i am i do apologize, but killing is one of the ultimate evils. i mean, i do agree about the chickens.. what makes a human life more worth anything? but then that is why i am a vegetarian.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

starfairy said:


> that is sad. just to even consider killing a child for money, you must hate your life conditions. if that's not a motivating factor, than it's probably sociopathy or something. i mean, i'm not trying to judge your choice or anything so if i am i do apologize, but killing is one of the ultimate evils. i mean, i do agree about the chickens.. what makes a human life more worth anything? but then that is why i am a vegetarian.


You're vegetarian. I admit then you are a better human than I am. 

I can't give up the taste of meat... but I do admire people that can pull that off.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> You're vegetarian. I admit then you are a better human than I am.
> 
> I can't give up the taste of meat... but I do admire people that can pull that off.


some people just like meat. vegetarians are a great minority. i actually admire meat eaters sometimes. they have a killer instinct in them that i don't. i feel like a pansy some times. i just don't like the thought of eating meat and don't think i could bring myself to kill an animal for it. i'd probably have to be starving and desperate to consider it.


----------



## aus2020 (Jun 29, 2011)

I mentioned previously in this thread 'With every action, there are often always consequences'. Many people assume that there will only be positive consequences in gaining large sums of money. That's not always the case.

https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/life/21-lottery-winners-who-lost-it-all/


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

starfairy said:


> some people just like meat. vegetarians are a great minority. i actually admire meat eaters sometimes. they have a killer instinct in them that i don't. i feel like a pansy some times. i just don't like the thought of eating meat and don't think i could bring myself to kill an animal for it. i'd probably have to be starving and desperate to consider it.


That's okay if you're starving and need a killer I'm here. 

I feel bad hunting deer and rabbits but its the cycle of life and I embrace my place in it.


----------



## rainbowsandpuppers (Apr 16, 2017)

Absolutely not. No amount of money. No "thing," no "experience," nothing will sway me. In fact, if it were, "shoot this random child I don't know or I die," I'd pick death for myself.

That's just me.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Vast Silence said:


> @*AAADD Edison*
> 
> I'm biploar so I usually come up with extreme arguments one way or another. But I don't have any trouble seeing someone turn the money down. *What I meant was that EVERYONE turning the money down was unlikely.* That's what prompted me taking the question from a public place like quora to an anonymous site like PerC.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure I've quoted a sentence of yours suggesting someting else, to which I've responded, but alright. You mean that then. And interesting point of view on life not being sacred, to which I feel different on.

I respect you seeing all life as equal. I have no argument against that.


----------



## Kamacrab (Apr 17, 2017)

I myself would probably never do it. I have enough pride where if I can't afford it with my hard earned cash, I'd rather live without it. If I didn't work hard for my own money then what's the point in having it? I don't think about things like if it's morally right to kill a stranger for money. But rather I feel a better sense of accomplishment when I buy something with money I myself earned by working hard. It helps me set goals in life


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

No way!


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

AAADD Edison said:


> I would love to become your teacher one day, and teach you the actual meaning of what's being selfish, and what's not, in a very direct and painful way.


That's not a very empathic thing to say. Especially considering you misunderstood my entire point.



> Saying yes to the answer is the selfish thing (whether or not being selfish is good or bad).


Ok, consider this. And here's why you should be careful with asserting yourself as the moral gold standard. Let's say you shoot the child and donate the money to save children in Africa. For that amount of money you could save the life of 10.000 children. Would that be selfish?



> You would choose your own well-being over that of someone else's, in the worst way possible: you prefer to upgrade your life at the cost of someone's actual life.


I understand the problem, but it's a lot more interesting to ponder why saving one life is "morally correct" but sacrificing one to save 10.000 is appalling. I'm not saying I would do it, It's just interesting because logically the latter option would be better for everyone except the child. 

And the reason to why I say it's _"selfish"_ is because most answers were more concerned about how *they would suffer from guilt.* Not because the child would die.



> Now, I know and have read saying yes to this is not an upgrade to everyone, thankfully, while there are people with a certain amount of empathy and all, whoms life will actually downgrade from this, while they know what's more important than money, from which I am one. Feeling bad for doing something extremely selfish like this (harming someone else to upgrade your own life = the definition of being selfish) is actually that what make certain people avoid acting in a selfish way, thanks to the ability of feeling guilt, and having empathy, things from which I know other certain people lack having.


No one is saying you wouldn't feel bad, or would consider it a joyful experience. I'm just saying that the_ less selfish_ thing in terms of numbers would be to shoot the child, live with the guilt and save 10.000 other peoples lives from the money. From a purely logically/mathematically perspective. That was my point. 



> I don't choose to be very empathic and all (if anything I feel too much guilt for my liking), nor do the less empathic and more psychotic people do. Despite this knowledge, there are quite some posts in here that sickens me, which I think is only natural because it's in so much conflict with my perception of life; what I believe is good, and what's not. It simply goes completely against my strongly presented feelings.


That's because you're applying your own interpretation of what people say. Might take a look at your own interpretations if you consistently get "sickened" by what people say. Just look at how much energy you used to judge my response on a fictitious scenario, without even understanding what I meant, which frankly was more directed towards the complexities of what's morally correct rather than enjoying killing a child for material gains.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Wiz said:


> That's not a very empathic thing to say. Especially considering you misunderstood my entire point.


 @AAADD Edison I'd like to know what you think about my response.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Consider that you could easily spend most or even all of that donating for organizations supporting starving children, children with cancer or any other cause that could in turn save the lives of thousands of children. The question then becomes: Would you choose to save one random child you don't know from early death, or would you choose to save thousands of random children you don't know from early death? 

This is essentially the trolley problem.


----------



## Abram Bamberger (Apr 20, 2017)

No, that is immoral, its murder.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

There is a story in India, where a mother brought her daughter into the hospital, and a man came up while they were waiting to see the doctor, and injected something into the child with a needle. The girl rolled her eyes backwards, and died. The mother was unable to stop or hold the man. The girl was later to be "dissected", which could mean that her organs would be "donated" or sold to the highest payer. It was probably for a lot less money than the ten million dollars.


----------



## INFPsyche (Nov 13, 2014)

Yes..

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk


----------



## DuCiel (Jul 24, 2014)

Anyone willing to say yes to this gives credit to all those murder mysteries about people being killed for their money. If you're willing to kill some random kid for money, then why not an adult? Bank robbery?

This isn't some kind of tough question unless you're actually a criminal or likely to become one some other way anyway. 

Also, assuming you'd be so amazing at spending that money that you'd save hundreds of kids is completely arrogant


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

DuCiel said:


> This isn't some kind of tough question unless you're actually a criminal or likely to become one some other way anyway.
> Also, assuming you'd be so amazing at spending that money that you'd save hundreds of kids is completely arrogant


It's pretty amazing how many people in general wouldn't do criminal acts simply because of the fear of getting caught rather than because of empathetic or morality reasons. Take the fear of retribution away and a lot of ugly, "natural", things leak everywhere. 

To push the envelope on this, we sensationalize psychopaths as these oddities who appear normal yet with no empathy and no fear. The 1-2% or whatever. Yet there are people UP THE WAZZO! in numbers who are passive towards morality with only the law and fear of retribution standing in their way. So much to the point where they wouldn't even think that there are other factors standing in people's way of not being like that. The people that don't believe morality to be anything other than a social nicety.


----------



## DuCiel (Jul 24, 2014)

I think 'kill this innocent person or else you will be killed' is a much more difficult scenario. I'm frankly stunned that so many people would kill just for money. And a little scared, assuming they're representative of the population and they're being honest 
Not that I have money, but this is just another reason I REALLY don't want that 10 million.


----------



## Cotillion (Mar 26, 2013)

can i assassinate 3 kids for 30,000,000$?


----------



## 449234 (Apr 6, 2017)

Uhhh... no. Is this even, truly, a question to some people? All the people who would kill the kid just to give themselves a more comfortable life, holy crap, I sincerely hope you're trolling. Sure you can "rationalize" it by stating you'd give it to charity, but that doesn't change the fact that you took a life without consent of the other person. Not to mention you can't really determine the exchange rate of resources to human life. If that were the case, we as a society would have gotten rid of the sick and elderly long ago! 

I'm going to stop here before I let my mind go down the philosophical rabbit hole and write a wall of text.

Here's a much better question: Would you commit suicide to give $10,000,000 to any individual/group of your choice?


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

Take out one whole life? Their future, their experiences, their fun? 

Answer is no. I'll pass on the money. _Ad alium diem vivant_, human child.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

This world could use more angels, and less demons.

I appreciate every angel out there.


----------



## nate23 (May 30, 2014)

Essentially depends on the kid. Never a 'random' one ofc. Cause I don't know who it is.. 

Qty =/= value. Some are infinitely better and infinitely worth more than hordes of others put together

But why a kid? Murdering an adult,esp a young one or a teenager generally seems worse to me..idk


----------



## OP (Oct 22, 2016)

*No.*

Even if I won't get caught, the kid's death would greatly affect the people who knew them.
_
“A wife who loses a husband is called a widow. A husband who loses a wife is called a widower. A child who loses his parents is called an orphan. There is no word for a parent who loses a child. That’s how awful the loss is.” – Jay Neugeboren, An Orphan's Tale_

What if this kid was someone's best (or even only) friend? That someone would likely be another young, impressionable kid. They'd be devastated and possibly emotionally scarred for life. The death would haunt them for years to come. They wouldn't be able to enjoy some of their favorite activities like they used to. Would I really want to screw up this friend's life? If the kid that I killed had several close friends, the death would likely impact all of them in similar ways.

What about the kid's favorite teacher? They saw so much potential in the kid.

What about the ice cream man outside the kid's school? The one who knew exactly what the kid was going to order without them having to say anything?

What about the people who hear or read about yet another murder or missing person case in their own neighborhood? Some of them are parents themselves and they'd have to worry for the safety of their own kids.

What about the bully who ends up wondering if the kid committed suicide because of their bullying? Sure, making them regret their bullying might be a good thing, but the kid's death wouldn't have been their fault and they shouldn't have to blame themselves for it.

Is hurting all of those people in some way really worth $10,000,000?


(Forgive me if someone else has written something similar. I haven't bothered to read through the whole thread.)


----------



## OP (Oct 22, 2016)

Okay. Let's say that I use that $10,000,000 to help the kid's community and everyone benefits from it.

That doesn't change the fact that some people lost their kid, relative, friend, or favorite student.

If the kid's parents find out that their kid's death led to this positive contribution, they'd be left wondering why their kid _had_ to die for this. If the kid's parents never find out, well, there's that. It's unlikely that they'd find closure either way.

So no, I still don't think I could justify this murder.


----------



## NekoAlex (May 14, 2017)

Why not? I won't get caught and I will get a lot of money. Morals are overrated.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

If I took the money, I would *be* the child the next time somebody else was asked.


----------



## Daiz (Jan 4, 2017)

Nope.

And that's actually wrong of me, because I could give that money to life-saving organisations.

But still, nope.


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

No. I stand by what's in my sig below.

No, not the burrito thing. The other one.


----------



## jointhecraziness (May 15, 2017)

umm I would have to say no lol


----------



## Stopping By Woods (Jun 20, 2016)

That someone would openly ask this question in the first place, and then justify it - and others actually agree - proves how fucking sick the world has become and that narcissistic, predatory psychopathic and sociopathic fucks evidently feel they can now crawl out from under their rocks and push their twisted thoughts, cloaked in the guise of hypothetical discourse, evidently to find and associate with like-minded individuals.

Somedays, I really do question if I have woken up in another reality.


----------



## Wincor (May 15, 2017)

No. No way. I could probably consider it if it wasn't a child.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't think I would be able to consume any food that has been earned through murder.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Don't get me wrong, killing a child would be cool and all, but I wouldn't pay $10,000,000 to do it. 


* *




Seriously though, the hardest part for me would be having to explain where all the money came from. And how young is this child, anyway? For me, the younger they were, the easier it would be. Would also depend on how much money I had at the time. With a decent, stable job? Nah, I'm not that materialistic. But if I were unemployed in a stagnant economy? yeah, then it's tempting.


----------



## Azazel (May 27, 2016)

Simpson17866 said:


> If I took the money, I would *be* the child the next time somebody else was asked.


The decision would be easier if _we_ were the child.

Our lives are under our consent to have it taken, others' don't.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Serenity said:


> The decision would be easier if _we_ were the child.
> 
> Our lives are under our consent to have it taken, others' don't.


 ... If somebody asked if you would be willing to die for $10,000,000 - not risk our lives doing something dangerous, die outright - then it wouldn't *be* a morality test, it would be an intelligence test :wink:


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

I've always found this thread interesting.

While researching pornography for a paper, I came across an interesting study about 700 fraternity boys. It was studying a relationship between watching pornography and ideas of rape. 

While there were many interesting statistics, the most interesting was that 29% of fraternity boys watch rape porn, with a highly significant correlation toward willingness to commit rape if there were no consequences. 

We look at that study, and are appalled at the idea of anyone harboring a hidden feeling that they'd rape someone if they could get away with it; yet, it's casual conversation to want to kill a child for some money. Haha.


----------



## Azazel (May 27, 2016)

Simpson17866 said:


> ... If somebody asked if you would be willing to die for $10,000,000 - not risk our lives doing something dangerous, die outright - then it wouldn't *be* a morality test, it would be an intelligence test :wink:


Apart from what I was trying to communicate;
Obviously, no one is going to offer *you exactly* the money for dying yourself... _lol_


----------



## PryorsHayes (Feb 21, 2017)

I think you should add to your answer whether you have children yourself, or else your answer is massively out of context.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

PryorsHayes said:


> I think you should add to your answer whether you have children yourself, or else your answer is massively out of context.


Well, maybe... But I don't have children, I don't want children either and my answer is Hell no.


----------



## BladeLution (May 16, 2017)

We all know it is fucked up that there are way too many people that would take the money. I personally won't because the guilt would kill me and I stand by my morals while other peoples morals are flexible. It really is sad that more than 99% of people would take the money.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

...and this thread _still_ exists...

BTW even if I were to assassinate someone it wouldn't be for 10,000,000$ but _$10,000,000._


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Antipode said:


> I've always found this thread interesting.
> 
> While researching pornography for a paper, I came across an interesting study about 700 fraternity boys. It was studying a relationship between watching pornography and ideas of rape.
> 
> ...


Not just rape. I think people would do anything if they could get away with no consequences. I think a lot of us have this fantasy of wanting to steal something, even if we are good, moralistic people.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Notus Asphodelus said:


> Not just rape. I think people would do anything if they could get away with no consequences. I think a lot of us have this fantasy of wanting to steal something, even if we are good, moralistic people.


I agree and disagree.

I don't think people would do "anything" if they could get away with it with no consequences. People have unlimited possibilities to, say, bring an animal into the woods and kill it. Not many people do that.

I do agree that everyone has unique desires, and some of which are darker desires, or desires that go against societal norms. For some it's stealing, and for others it could be voyeurism. And if they could get away with it, the temptation may be strong enough to get them to do it.

However, I also think that people are not ruled by desires. They're there, and it's something for humanity to deal with, but they don't control everyone. 

I don't really do anything that's wrong, but not because I'm just this good person, but because I've been conscious enough to not allow certain desires to be fostered. For instance, in high school, I once stole a bottle of lube from a grocery store xD It was very easy. However, I made a point not to do it again, because I felt it was wrong. So I consciously made sure not to steal again, so not to foster that desire. And on a more internal note, I also don't go around sexualizing people I see in my head, or discuss people as objects with others, as not to foster that instinctual desire. So now, it's not so much that I constantly choose not to do bad things, but that I don't even have that desire in the first place.

This is how I agree and disagree with your sentiment.


----------



## akiyama (Jan 11, 2015)

Vast Silence said:


> You are asked to kill a human child for 10,000,000$.
> Hypothetically, of course.
> You will not be caught.
> Nobody else will know.
> NO LOOP HOLES.


My answer is yes, but not for the terrible reasons you gave. I would do it in order to devolve the money on something that I believe would save more lives than the one I killed, and also would do the most good. I'm not going to say what it is because the mental association that I would be willing to kill someone for it may portray it in a negative light. But you get the point.

If someone is interested, send me a PM.


----------



## akiyama (Jan 11, 2015)

Vast Silence said:


> I dont really believe in Morality. There have been arguments made for it but it's a very relative thing.
> Logic on the other hand can be narrowed down and quantified.


Morality can also be narrowed down and quantified, it's just genuinely much harder.


----------



## Heavelyn (Oct 24, 2015)

First thought "Yes, why not?"
But after reading your post - it depends If I were in a mood and have a 'way to outsmart' the game, then maybe I'd do. I can never say I'm 00% sure because there my brain comes and has different opinion than I do and well... I'm inferior to it XD


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

Well sure. I'd get a lot of ground up pepper, blow it in his face (aiming for the nose), and cause him to sneeze several times. When you sneeze your heart stops beating so you are legally dead. Therefore I would assassinate the same child multiple times and... do I get payed for killing him over and over or is it a one time payment?


----------



## Because_why_not (Jul 30, 2016)

Yup of course

Then I'd get all the money together in a pile and set fire to it. I'll roast marshmallows on my bonfire and laugh about what a fun-filled Saturday I just had. 

And I don't even like marshmallows that much.


----------



## shoot4thestars (Jul 30, 2015)

Did you ever think that people who say no aren't just trying to act all high and mighty? That maybe they genuinely believe that there is more value in a human life than in material items? We're all anonymous here- what reason would we have to lie? My mind works differently than yours. The way my mind works- I would never in a million years kill a child for any sum of money even if I would not get caught. This is for many reasons. The way that you cannot wrap your mind around someone saying no- I cannot wrap my mind around someone saying yes.

A few reason I've listed here:
1. I value human life. Even a life not known to me. What gives me the right to prevent that child from growing up and to have the same opportunity at life that I've been granted? What if that child was you, or your sibling or friend or child? 

2. I cannot bring myself to commit senseless violence.

3. I can work for my living. I do not need it handed to me. 

4. Money does not hold as much value for me in the grand scheme of priorities in my life.


Even if I was in an alternate reality and was living in poverty and no matter what I tried I couldn't beat the system because life kept handing me crap or I was forced to the streets and had children to provide for-- At that point, I may be desperate. At our lowest lows breeds the darkest of thoughts. But even then, even though there are many desperate measures that may cross my mind, I can say with 100% certainty killing for cash would not be one of them. This isn't even like the Batman scenario where there are two ferries -one filled with convicted felons and the other filled with civilians- and they are given the choice to either die or kill all the convicted felons on the other boat to save their families and children. No. For this scenario, you get to choose to walk away and go on with your life and no one dies. To me, it's a no-brainer. Also, donating that money would feel immensely hypocritical. Not to mention all the red tape involved with charities. I would be directly affecting someone's life to try to indirectly help people through charities I could've donated to myself without killing anyone. To me it doesn't quite make sense. 

Those who cannot wrap their minds around someone saying no could probably not wrap their minds around someone returning a wallet that was dropped in the middle of a busy city. Or someone seeing a random stranger walk away absentmindedly forgetting her purse so he/she dashes after them and taps that stranger on the shoulder to return it with no expectation of anything in return. I know these people exist because I've seen it. Humans are not psychologically conditioned to only do what is logical; we're not robots. We're human.

*Also, if that person was willing to spend a ton of money to kill a child, what's to say he won't eventually kill me to keep me quiet. There are many, many reasons for me to say no and to try to get that individual behind bars before he tries to pay someone else to do the deed.


----------



## makeup (Sep 28, 2015)

Definitely not, taking away a life is not worth 10 million dollars for me.


----------



## BethBelle (Jun 1, 2017)

Killing for cash. Never.


----------



## Ochi96 (Jun 5, 2017)

Even if I agreed to do it for the money, I could not pull the trigger, because, if I killed him I would be rich, but I could not bear the guilt, so it would ruin me in the end (suicide, probably).


----------

