if its literally: kill a kid, no one will ever know, police doesnt care, it just a dark room with a kid in it and someone hands me a gun, then i'd do it for a thousand bucks.
if i have to get rid of the body, make sure i dispose of all the stuff correctly, possibly run the risk of getting caught and/or people knowing i did it, i'd want at least 50 million. shit like that ruins your life hard, like get raped to death in prison ruined.
if i have to kill the kid with especially gruesome method, like "drill its head till it dies" or "chainsaw in the guts" or just "rape it to death you faggot" i'd need a considerably higher sum for the permanent damage to my psyche to be worth it
if the kids someone i know, or possibly the kid of a good friend of mine, i'd be hard pressed to do it at all. unless the kids a cunt.
>>734104645 Edgy Teen answers aside, it would depend upon several factors such as whether or not I know them personally, their age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, mental and health status. It would also depend upon whether or not I would be allowed to choose the method of killing, so I could ensure a painless or relatively painless death. Assuming these were all within a specific range and I was able to decide how, I would take a while to think about it and weigh the options.
Sorry it's not an average /b/tard answer but it's more complicated of a situation than just a yes or no.
>>734108908 >implying I don't vehemently protect them from the idiots who would do them harm >implying I don't live a life of noble celibacy due to high morals >implying I wouldn't devote my life to seeing to their needs >implying im not an ancientfag who grew out of his edgy phase a decade ago, and still lurk to this day.
I desire to ruin your life, so that everything that loves you instead turns on you, and anything that ever made you happy instead turned to ashes in your mouth.
My first reaction was no, but then I remembered I can probably save a shit ton of kids from dying if I donate a lot of it to charity. It's kind of like the trolley problem. Rationally the killing is the best choice as it can cause the highest total gain in happiness in the whole system, but humans are averse to it anyway because the one killing feels worse because it's more personal and direct than the people being saved by the money.
Knowing this I'd probably choose to kill the kid if there is no chance of being caught, then use the bulk of the money for philanthropy. Not sure how much I would keep for myself, as the higher the amount, the more guilty I'd feel. At most 1% I guess.
No, because then you'd effectively be modifying the social contract to be: "we agree not to kill each other, except when offered large sums of money" instead of "we agree to not kill each other". The former does not lead to stable society.
Is this thread a joke? I'd kill a kid for 100k and a Snickers. Implying no legal implications or ramifications. Implying there's an investigation, I'd do it for 2 million. Maybe 1 million and a Snickers, but give me a week to plan it and make it look like an accident.
Brush, you realize societies murder for large sums all the time? They just try to make sure it's not their own citizens. See capitalist backed coups for bananas in the 70's.
American example, economic externalities. Things that companies do have effects outside of the buyer and seller, pollution being a classic example. These externalities have implications for the monetary output of society and pretty regularly kill people. No one does anything about it in most cases because the way things currently work are profitable, to the nth "large sum of money" degree. Oil wars.
>>734114471 True, I don't actually think Kantian ethics applies on a worldwide scale, you also get some layers of obfuscation and group think going on in your examples, so it's not a clear cut murder quid pro quo.
>a month later a cure is invented for the cancer the child was having >the child could have been saved >the child would have grown up to be the greatest physicist of all time >the child would have invented a warp-drive that would have enabled mankind to travel between stars
Thanks faggot, you just ruined mankind's future in space.
>>734104645 Let's be honest. It's pretty much impossible to get that kind of money without doing heinous shit. Stepping over people, throwing them under the bus, exploiting workers... I think anyone who's actually earned that kind of money and wasn't just born with it also earned a closet full of skeletons in the process.
One dead child is probably nothing compared to the exploited children that would probably be a necessary evil for a business that can earn you that kind of money, cash in hand. At the same time, personally killing someone, anyone is quite a bit harder to distance yourself from than the suffering of people halfway across the globe in some shitty third world country you couldn't do anything about anyways.
But logically, it's no worse than the CEO of a big company's probably done to get where he is, when all is said and done: one child versus potentially thousands of ruined lives.
As long as no one knew about it, yes. You know how much good you could do in the world with that kind of money? How many children you could save from slavery and starvation? Well worth the life of one child.
>>734116286 >Honestly i'd like to say i could Why? I'd like to say that I wouldn't, that I couldn't be bought to do such a heinous thing, but that kind of money? It could potentially fix all my problems. I could help my own family. I could invest it into greater gains and I might not ever have to work again. Then out of guilt I could donate to all kinds of child's charities. In the end it would be more beneficial to the children of the world than if I didn't, which isn't a bad justification. But then, it's pretty much just an excuse.
It makes me feel like a monster, but when I ask myself honestly, I guess my humanity does have a price. I'd probably regret it later too, once the novelty of living a life of luxury fades and all I have left are sleepless nights thinking about the child I killed and in the end I'm less happy than I am now. But I think I'd still do it, because faced with that decision the "right" answer seems obvious to me.
Thinking this way alone makes it kind of hard to live with myself, but then I've never done something like that. I've never hurt anyone, not for any gain, even when I've had opportunities where it could have helped me succeed. That was me living by my moral standard. But I've of course never been given an offer of that magnitude. That does change things, and the fact that's true kind of makes me sick.
>>734109758 This is true for the overwhelming majority of people. But there are people like me (diagnosed narcissist, inb4 edgelord etc) who lack empathy and could almost certainly do it without feeling too bad afterwards.
That said, I don't know if I actually have the stomach to do something like that. Lacking empathy is one thing, but carrying out the physical process of murdering a child isn't something that just anyone who lacks empathy will be cool with. You still have to have a cruelly sadistic side to your character and I don't think I have that.
>>734117578 You're not exactly gonna feel better about yourself afterwards. It takes a special degree of self-delusion to do so.
But for a decent person, it's harder to sacrifice others than it is to sacrifice yourself. Because it's wrong, and in any religion it dooms your soul. In a way, it's a greater sacrifice for a good person to make.
>>734104645 This would make a great Criminal Minds episode. A multi-billionaire offers ordinary people absurd amounts of money to kill children, (doing so in a particular M.O. so that the BAU thinks they're chasing a single serial killer for a while).
I would feel guilty about it and yes I would know it was wrong but I would do it for that amount of money.
For that amount of money I could buy enough food, medical, and educational aide for third world countries to save the lives of tens of thousands of children.
I would do it too.
I would do it and still have millions upon millions of dollars to spend on myself.
So the real question is this ShitBird;
Would you feel guilty over killing one child if you could do it and then save the lives of tens of thousands of children, or are you too weak and selfish?
It's not about if you are strong enough to kill the child. It's about if you are strong enough to make the hard decisions that lead to the greater good, or if you are a weak little bitch who only cares about your feelings and not tens of thousands of children.
>>734118716 No reason to lionize your shitty ethics. You are a utilitarian and would happily kill innocent individuals for the collective. You'd make a good nazi, which you'll probably consider a compliment.
>help 3rd world children survive >few years later, lots more adults >adults are now worse off because there are fewer supplies to go around >all you're doing is prolonging the children's suffering and then bringing even more suffering onto the adults
>>734119280 no, you're just the kind of person who can rationalize murdering innocents, no different than anyone in history who justified crimes against humanity to himself it's not a big deal, since no one will ever offer you money to murder a kid; you're just the kind of person who would take it is all
>>734104925 Pretty much exactly this. I wouldn't like to do it, I'd try to make it quick, but that's not just life changing money, that's take care of your family for the next few generations money. That's do whatever the fuck you want, grow fat, and not give a fuck money.
I am not a libtard, but I voted for Clinton. I am not African-American, but I voted for Clinton. (93% of all African-American voters voted for Clinton, BTW) I am not a fan of Obama (voted for both McCain and Romney), but I voted for Clinton.
I'm just a 7'1" woman who remembers the prosperity of Bill Clinton being Prez.
>>734118972 I would also kill innocent individuals for the collective, if it really was the "right" thing to do. I would even die if I knew it would genuinely bring good affect to people I could be moved to consider beyond faces in a crowd. This doesn't mean I would take such an action lightly, or be able to sleep at night.
I don't consider being called a Nazi a complement.
>>734119619 I think the modus operandi is different enough, though. It's not like I'm making this child out to be some kind of inhuman monster that I must exactly then kill.
It's an innocent child. And then there are countless other innocent children who might be afforded a better chance at not dying if this one innocent child dies.
If there are supplies for 6 people in a group of survivors, but there are 7 people, they will all suffer collectively. If one person is removed from the equation, then the rest will suffer less. Unless people enjoy squalor and suffering, the best outcome is someone voluntarily removing themselves from the situation. The next most valuable but unfortunate outcome is the 7th person deciding to simply die from lack of supplies while the remaining 6 are well kept. The next most valuable but unfortunate outcome is anything from forceful exile to murder. After that is trying to sustain 7 people with 6 people's worth of supplies. Then there's giving supplies to only <6 people. Then, there's giving supplies to no one.
Not everyone can necessarily win in a situation like that. I'd walk into the sunset and die of starvation if I really saw no other way, and absolutely did not contribute to the well being of anyone in the group.
>>734120635 >is facist to it's core >nazis Everyone I don't like is Hitler.
There is a threshold that one must reach in order for my to justify the sacrifice.
Would I kill one child to save five children?
No. I would let the five children die.
Why? Because five children aren't worth the mental anguish I would suffer having to kill the one child with my own hands.
With that being said I would feel bad about the five children and their deaths as well. But, I would mentally rationalize that it wasn't "really" me, even though it kind of would be me, but "not really".
Now if it's millions of children, then I can easily and with very little remorse make the decision.
I'm not saint, but overwhelming numbers are different to me personally than slightly unbalanced numbers.
I'm not going to donate all of my organs and kill myself prematurely to save a handful of people.
I possibly could, but it isn't worth it to me.
I'm no saint, I just admit there is a certain point where the numbers reach a threshold where I could justify morally the sacrifice of a single child.
I'm not claiming my ethics are 100% perfect, I'm claiming they are however realistic and rational.
There is a difference.
I'm no saint, I'm just able to count, basically, and eventually the numbers make the morality overwhelmingly ethical to anyone who can also count.
Your failure to see this is just a basic failure to understand math in my opinion.
>>734121187 Explain why, otherwise that reply is a knee-jerk reaction and I'll treat it as such.
There's no need for concentration camps. All people are people. Freedom of speech is valid in my eyes, and should be a right regardless. Freedom of association is valid. Information should be free. Supranational organizations are fine. One man shouldn't have all the power, because power often corrupts.
>>734121235 >I'm no saint, I'm just able to count, basically, and eventually the numbers make the morality overwhelmingly ethical to anyone who can also count.
I do not want to live in a society where someone will be killed just because it is beneficial to others and I doubt you want to as well.
If it comes down to kill this guy and save a million others then it is a maybe a necessary evil but still wrong.
But honestly there will never be a situation where this applies. The real world implications would be organ donations. Kill one guy, harvest organs, save 5 more.
And then there is the special case of shooting down a hostage plane like they could have done in 9/11. But that is little bit different because those people will die anyway and will harm others in the process.
>>734122567 >I do not want to live in a society where someone will be killed just because it is beneficial to others and I doubt you want to as well >The real world implications would be organ donations Exactly. Organ donors. When they arrive at the ER, and they present as clinically dead, the top priority is checking whether or not they're a donor. If they are, then there's no attempt at bringing them back.
Because little Tommy needs a new heart.
I would definitely live in a world like that, because we already do. Furthermore, nothing is ever hard and fast. Utilitarianism doesn't always have to be >maximum happiness >efficiency for maximum happy because that's often how you make people unhappy. That's how you perform Totalitarianism, not necessarily just Utilitarianism. For example, you fearing being culled for the sake of people you either don't care about, or care about less than yourself. Maybe rightfully so, you have the right to have a care for life. Doesn't everyone else? If they do, and you do, how do we make both of you happy?
We don't unnecessarily kill people for the sake of maximizing. We accept the next set of consequences, because the most realistic outcome is often the most acceptable, digestible, and agreeable one. Someone might not be able to buy a fast car, but at least they'll be fed and have a roof over their heads.
Utilitarianism doesn't preclude Totalitarianism. Utilitarianism is not Totalitarianism. If happiness in a given society is contingent on individual and collective freedoms, then that society can't be governed in a totalitarian fashion.
>>734117047 No difference killing a child than it is killing a mosquito. Buddha would agree.
Kill yourself faggot. I'd do it for $10 000 because companies that manufacture handguns, synthetic drugs, alcohol and education systems designed to make us non critical thinkers kill children every day. And that aint even mentioning the wars and shit.
anyone saying no for some moral ground is fucking stupid. I bet you're wearing a piece of clothing some little kid was killed over or drinking coffee that was cultivated in a place where a kid had his arm cut off cause he wantd to vote.
Extremely high level athletes where height is a major factor contributing to their success are between 6'1 and 7 feet tall with those reaching the 7 foot threshold almost always suffering from medical conditions related to their height and short careers.
The tallest woman on record was 7'8.
You are taller than Shaq.
You are taller by a wide margin than the current UFC HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD. He is 6'4.
You tower above the biggest best alpha male fighter in the world by NINE INCHES.
A human male that is 7'1 almost always suffers from a confirmed genetic DISORDER that results in their extreme freakish height.
A female that tall is so far in the extreme that it is easily considered a freakish genetic disorder issue.
>>734123743 >Exactly. Organ donors. When they arrive at the ER, and they present as clinically dead, the top priority is checking whether or not they're a donor. If they are, then there's no attempt at bringing them back.
>I would definitely live in a world like that, because we already do
That may be your fear but that is just an urban legend. Clinically dead is dead. You can not bring someone back who is truly clinically back. There is always the factor of human error, but there is no institutional incentive to pronounce someone falsely dead to harvest his organs in a first world country. And if you are think there is, then please cite a source.
That is quite the accusation you are bringing forth. Like some "first grade newspapers would pay millions for evidence scandal" shit right there.
If this isn't the exact disorder you have, you have the features and characteristics of someone with this disorder.
YOU HAVE A GENETIC DISORDER, GO SEE A DOCTOR FREAK.
Gigantism, also known as giantism (from Greek γίγας gigas, "giant", plural γίγαντες gigantes), is a condition characterized by excessive growth and height significantly above average. In humans, this condition is caused by over-production of growth hormone in childhood resulting in people between 7 feet (2.13 m) and 9 feet (2.75 m) in height.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.