I just don't understand how people automatically assume that killing another person is automatically a matter of morality rather than a matter of necessity.
But I guess if you think victims of violent crime should possess the capacity to maim their attacker by expertly taking him out in non-lethal ways as to preserve the life of their attacker over their own, then I guess it's the victim's fault that they usually can't...

Just saying... not every situation is "Will I murder this guy? Yes or no."

(Obviously, I'm straying from the original post with this... I don't think killing someone for money is acceptable at all)

I'm not honestly sure how morally people can accept money for committing murder. What is going on inside you to feel it's acceptable to murder someone you might now or be related too. I just hope you can see whether karma will be returned to you. Will the money be really worth it in the long run?

I don't see it as morally correct, but I sure as hell won't dismiss the idea that I could kill somebody for that amount, especially in the scenario given.

Ok, to reply to Engine's post: the usage of the TZ example was to show the other side of the coin to those who say "Hell yeah!" If it's so acceptable to you (and here I'm not talking to Engine but to those who said yes) that you kill someone for money, someone you probably don't know and have no idea if they deserve to die (if anyone does), is it then equally acceptable for someone to be approached with the same offer to kill you? Would you then think of it differently and wonder why someone would kill someone they don't know, have no beef with and that has done nothing to merit such treatment?

Would you truly want someone being handed your photo and saying "don't know who he/she is but if you're paying me 50 mill then he/she is dead"?

I think it puts a different slant on things, and shows a different side to the offer, particularly for those who would accept it.

As for why we condone/don't condone murder, well, that would take more than one post, wouldn't it, and would be a whole other day's work... ;)

Well I wouldn't really be bothered cos I'd be dead and they got 50 mil

OK then, look at it another way. Say it was your mother/father/husband/child whatever. Would you care then?

The self righteousness of people in this thread disgusts me.

The scenario needs to tell us what happens if we don't kill him. Does some other guy do it or is the man let free?

Knowing Tuna, we prob die

I would do it anyway most likely, but there isn't really an option if it's guaranteed that the man will die regardless.

would you lot rather die yourself or kill an innocent man with a dependent young family?
that's manky's hypothetical.

Let free, it wouldn't be much of a hypothetical otherwise.

And apparently being self-righteous means finding murder immoral. lol.

Mancini's new coaching techniques: make up that fifteen point gap or else!!! :D

Why is everyone taking this thread so seriously? Not pointing any elbows.

What's "self-righteous" about saying you wouldn't kill for money?? I know my faults, and they are many and varied, but I also know where I draw the line, and I would not kill anyone for any amount of money. I seriously do not see how that makes me self-righteous. (If the comment was aimed at me. Which I think it was. If not, carry on castigating these other self-righteous ****ers!) :laughing:

Mines wasn't even though you weren't asking that.



BUT, why ask a question like that when the answers are one or the other but won't accept people with an opposing view? Obviously people are going to say yes, I'd shank a man for a fiver given half the chance.

I think it's being taken a bit too seriously in all honesty, like the batlord says nobody knows what they would do unless they've been placed in that position, so we can all stop crying now.

Rules for this thread: just answer 'yes'

Rules for being an interesting poster: don't be a sheep

Who's a sheep?

Who did I quote?

I have no idea how I'm being a sheep tbh.

You posted exactly what fetcher said directly before you, seems too coincidental that you both formulated that thought back to back

not even true either you can choose whatever answer you like but I'm gonna have an opinion on it

I didn't even read that post. The one I did see said something about self-righteousness. Then I saw Trollheart's.

I'm actually willing to bet that, were we all in the situation, more people would actually take advantage of it than believe they would now.

Social desirability bias probably keeps more of us in line in a hypothetical situation than would be restrained if given the real opportunity. These kinds of "scott free" situations have a way of bringing out the absolute worst in humanity.

Truth. You can see how many people will exercise impulse control and atheists would probably be more likely to pull the trigger

I mentioned the Stanford Prison Experiment once before, and I'll bring it up again because I think it's entirely relevant: When people are put in a position of power over other people, even when there's nothing to gain, they will take every advantage of those beneath them.

Makes you think maybe Freud was on to something, other than the cocaine, haha.

I think it also depends on a person's innate psychology and how domineering they are, but societal conditionings we've been taught to live by go out the window to seemingly normal people when theyre face with situations where they think they aren't being watched and judged

So you think we're all sociopaths?

I'd never generalize, but I do think we'd all be shocked by the number of people who would follow through if the situation were literal. It's been evidenced repeatedly in psychological/sociological discourse that people do not handle power well.

The idea is that there's no finite good guys or bad guys, but there's a dividing line in every person that can be crossed from good to bad (or vice versa, I suppose) given the right situation/authority.

Ex. this thread: for some people that line is family in danger, for others it's a life-changing sum of money

I suppose what I'm arguing is that in a situation truly absent of consequences, that dividing line occurs at a shockingly weak level of justification.

It's not realistic.

No? How do you feel about the situation?

I feel like if the consequences were brought into the situation then people might not be as eager to get involved. It's not realistic to assume that you won't be held accountable for committing murder. That's not to say you will be caught but we are hardly experts at hiding evidence.

I do find it amusing, a little insulting that some people here seem to think it's unbelievable that anyone would NOT contemplate murder for gain. I mean, what's so hard to understand? Are you guys saying that if someone gave you a gun, brought you to a baby in its pram and said shoot this kid dead and I'll pay you fifty million that you would? Is there no line you would not cross? Have you no morals?

And if you don't, then why do you assume I don't?

You couldn't pay me enough to kill another human being.

Now, my father, that's another question: but then he's not what I'd categorise as a human being. I'd do him for half a curly-wurly and a packet of love hearts!

It's not about morality. We all know that it's morally wrong to kill someone for money. That's so obvious that it's not even worth mentioning. The question at hand is whether you think that the morality that is tested by opening the door for little old ladies or not cheating on a test is sufficient to cover this kind of situation. Obviously you have had your morality tested in ways that mine never have, but the question still remains. If you were in this position, just think of how you could help your sister. You could hire nurses. The finest medical care would be at your disposal. Not to overstep my bounds, but I'm sure that when the time came that these thoughts would go through your head and right and wrong might just become blurred.

No, but morality is a creation of evolution meant to serve a pragmatic purpose (i.e. allowing us to live in a group to better chances for survival.) It doesn't exist objectively. Just think of slavery. People thought that it was wrong even when the Spanish were considering enslaving the natives in America. They had public debates on the subject. But I'm sure it occurred to them that if they didn't exploit the New World and all that it had to offer, slaves included, that the English or the Dutch would and would come to dominate them. And so morality was altered to suit pragmatism. It wasn't until the industrial revolution and slavery became obsolete that morality was allowed to win out. Obviously for an individual morality is less fluid, since if a single human being isn't willing to die to protect their child or someone isn't willing to put themselves in danger to fight an oppressive government then morality wouldn't have enough power to protect the species as a whole, but the point remains that morality is not an absolute.

Um, no it wouldn't. If it did I'd consider robbing a bank or mugging someone or insurance fraud. Boring as it may seem, I'm from the school of thought that believe you reap what you sow, and so if I got rich by virtue of an immoral, to say nothing of illegal act, I'd never be able to enjoy it and I'd feel like I was lying to my sister, who would surely ask where all this money had come from? I'd be expecting bad things to happen, even if they didn't. Anyway, I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes, and I would certainly not want anyone taking money to kill me, or my sister, people they don't even know. Do unto others (then split) as they say... And no, I'm not in the least religious. I just think you should treat people as you would like to be treated.

Smaller, less momentous dilemma: you find a wallet/purse in the street. There are identification details in it and rather a lot of money. Do you hand it in or do you keep it? Or, third choice, do you try to contact the person directly? And if the third choice, do you do so a) because you don't trust the cops or b) you hope to get a reward?

It IS all about morality. The figure you're offered can be large as you want, or even something totally out there, like say Satan appeared and offered me the chance to have my sister cured completely, if I kill one person. Who am I to put that sort of moral responsibility on her, and how would she react if she knew how her newly repaired health had been boughtt?

You need to know there's a line, and you don't step over it no matter what. Murder is where I draw the line. Well, further back really: I wouldn't even injure someone or rob from them. I'm pretty law-abiding really.

This exact scenario happened last month to me. The lady was traveling from Nevada. I got her info off the web and called her. She was a few blocks away desperately looking for her wallet. I had to pay 11 dollars to get her info to contact her. She offered a reward but I just asked for my 11 dollars back as it was only fair. I've even found peoples pets off of posted signs. They are always so relieved and always offer a reward. I don't feel its right to charge people for doing the right thing in any instance. And I don't really care if people find it pretentious, I won't change to meet other peoples standards.