The 1 Dollar Question
Pages
| Author | Topic: The 1 Dollar Question |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, September 6 2005 23:39
Profile
quote:You are here. *this message unsponsored due to sudden exodus of funds to australia* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 3171
|
written Tuesday, September 6 2005 23:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:I am a christian but I have to disagree with this. Even in the bible there was killing of people who had done wrong and there are definitly people this world could do without. If someone is willing to direct attacks against unarmed people then they don't deserve to live. I think that the ones who are causing it should die, not nessisarily the ones doing it. Just because a soldier is ordered to do something for his country does not mean that he is at fault. Posts: 776 | Registered: Friday, July 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, September 6 2005 23:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:For $10, why even bother? [ Tuesday, September 06, 2005 23:51: Message edited by: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 00:12
Profile
If I could pick the ones who would die, I'd kill lots of people. A billion or two less of us seems reasonable. Not sure what the hell I'd do with the money, though. Maybe I'd just take my share (around 20 000 dollars or som) and donate the rest to charity. I have no use for that much money anyway. And if they'd be random people, I'd propably take 100 $ cause I'm in desperate need of cash. Heck, hundred of 5 000 000 is very little, and thousands of people die (and are born)every second, so if a hundred suddenly kicked the bucket, so what? And if I'd be among them... so what? I deserved it anyway. [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 00:12: Message edited by: Frozen Feet ] -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 02:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:Killing two billion people at random (because you don't have two billion mortal enemies, I assume you'll pick out people you don't know), and donating the result of this carnage to charity strikes me as... Well... [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 02:49: Message edited by: Arancaytar ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 03:44
Profile
0 and 0. "Do unto others..." Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 04:35
Profile
To Aran: Death is random. You could die any moment, and you will die some day anyway. Besides, if I killed a portion of world's population, there would be less people to share the money and thus those left would get a bigger share and thus the money donated would be of bigger help. Of course, suggesting there aren't any unhonest people in the chain is optimistic, but I could always hope that I killed the worst ones. There are too many people on this planet already. I consider that randomly killing two billion people has more benefits than letting them live. Consider this: a village has food to feed hundred people, but there are 200 in the village. If the food is equally shared between people, they all will suffer. Of course, the other hundred will then suufer from famine. I personally think, that being dead is better than suffering from a famine, and those suffering from famine propably will die anyway. You can always counter this by saying, that even if those hundred didn't have food, they would still have hope and could become something. Perhaps, but those who have enough food will survive longer and so have better changes of becoming something. Of course, I could also kill the ones keeping the food to themselves, if that would be the case, but I fail to see the point here; killing the other half still leads to the same situation. I could always wipe out the whole village, as I don't have and would not have any moral diffuculties doing so; there are 6 billion humans on this planet, killing 200 instead of 100 is just the same. It's also irrelevant what kind of people those villagers are; I most likely don't know any of them anyway. (BTW, just as a funny note, if I had moral diffuculties, I just could kill myself and be done with it; the god or whatever can punish me if he wants to. And even if theres nothing after death, well, no bad consciense without brains.) These are my views, Aran. If you still think I'm a hypochrite, then either I can't express my views to you or then you simply don't understand them. Or then indeed I am a hypochrite. Oh, and what comes to the 20 000 or 100 dollars (depending on the case, remember?), they'd be just out of greed. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 04:48
Profile
Malthusian reasoning is not sound economics. Consider that the US produces (roughly) sixteen times as much food as it needs to sustain its population. There's a lot to go around in our world of six billion, its just a matter of distribution. The pie continues to get larger as technology improves. And death isn't random. While certain circumstances may seem random - car accidents, for example - there are definite steps we could all take to reduce risk. If anything, your decision to kill at random only increases the odds that people will die sooner than later, and that isn't happy for people like me, who enjoy living. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 05:06
Profile
Maybe you're right. Maybe not. That still doesn't change my views. And yes, I am and was aware that my reasoning is not sound economics. But then, it is very possible no such kind of reasoning exists. EDIT: And you're about death: it isn't random. Everybody has 100% change of dying, so no matter how many times you roll the dice, you always lose. [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 05:15: Message edited by: Frozen Feet ] -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 3442
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 05:13
Profile
Homepage
For A), I selected one, although I can think of two... Definately less than ten though. And perhaps even less then 5. For part B), I selected none. Random people might include the people I love, however few they are, and I'm not willing to take that chance. -------------------- "I am a living sign..." Thus endeth this post. Posts: 2864 | Registered: Monday, September 8 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 05:14
Profile
Your "reasoning" almost sounds like what a completely apathetic person would say, except it's within the boundaries of sanity where you don't kill yourself in the process. Well, at least it's good to see different points of view on this whole hypothetical situation. -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 05:17
Profile
Are you sure about the sanity thing? 'Cause I don't feel apathetic at all. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 08:41
Profile
Frozen Feet, what about the families and friends of all the people that would die? Obviously someone will find them and will mourn the loss. Sure, the world would be richer (assuming the money is donated and distributed), but what if by chance the random people turn out to be everyone you know (it is possible)? [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 08:42: Message edited by: Sunset ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 08:53
Profile
Homepage
To those who are adamant that the answer to both questions is 0, what would you do if you had a chance to go back in time and kill Hitler in 1932? I know that I am completely reversing the question, but look at this situation: if you could prevent 100 murders by killing the murderer and don't do it, are you responcible for the 100 deaths? With that reasoning, here are my answers: A) All leaders of terrorist groups that murder civilians (soldiers are fair targets) and all cerial killers. I am guessing it will come out to about 1,000 - 10,000 people, depending on whether I want to include all suicide bombers in training. (Picked 1000 in the poll, because I would prefer to think that the number of people like that is on the lower end of the scale.) B) 0 I wouldn't murder a random person even if I got a million dollars for it. [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 08:57: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 09:41
Profile
Let's not confuse this discussion with time travel. Besides, we've seen the result of such an action played out in Command and Conquer: Red Alert. I don't think it needs to be visited further. :D It may be a little trite, but I'll go ahead and throw the Gandalf quote out there: quote:We can't see all ends, especially those of us who only know about others based on hearsay. This makes us extremely unqualified to make such decisions about people, and no better than the murderers we would destroy. Of course, if you aren't concerned with the personal ethical questions involved, then by all means... [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 09:43: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 10:07
Profile
Homepage
I didn't play Command and Conquer, so I don't get your joke. :) I guess killing Hitler is too cliche. Let's suggest a more realistic situation: You are walking down the street with your best friends. A man starts shooting at you and your friends and he is not missing. You have a gun in your pocket. Do you kill the attacker? [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:09: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 10:24
Profile
quote:There is a profound difference between murder and self-defense. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 10:34
Profile
quote:This is a substantively different scenario. In this case, someone is deliberately trying to harm me. Given this, I would defend myself with a gun if I had one. The upshot of using the gun as opposed to the "instantly kill someone for $1" ability is that I have a chance of disabling my attacker without killing him. He then could be subject to the law, of which generally I'm a fan. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 10:36
Profile
Homepage
EDIT: Sorry, about the first question. I've removed it. Just consider the questions in the next paragraph instead. Would your answer to my hypothetical situation change if the attacker was targeting one of your friends, instead of you? Would it be the same answer if the attacker was shooting at random children in the schoolyard, rather than at your friends? PS And let's assume that the disabling isn't an option, because the guy just keeps shooting despite the pain of wounds from your gun. Or let's assume that the only thing you have is a "death ray" that instantly kills the target. Saying "I'll shoot but not to kill" avoids the moral dilemma. EDIT 2: My point is that for most of us there is a situation in which we would be willing to kill somebody. The only difference is where we draw the line. [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:55: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 11:03
Profile
I agree with your point. If someone was firing at my friend, or at a schoolyard full of children, I would not hesitate to fire a death ray, though there may be legal consequences for me. This falls into 2nd Treatise reasoning, an area I seldom venture, since I think Hobbes generally got it right more often than Locke. :) [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:05: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 11:25
Profile
A. 100,000+ B. 0 To be compltely honest, I probably wouldn't kill anyone either way. But to be able to weed the world of evil-doers (as you said, terrorists, rapists, etc.) in a seemingly natural way while earning oneself a tidy sum seems, at first thought, to be a great oppurtunity. I'd never allow it to happen randomly, though - you never know who you might kill. That would make me an evil-doer, certainly, whether option A would or not. I don't think I'd be able to play God, however; if God lets them live, I can find money elsewhere. EDIT: Zeviz's example is a good justification for option A. If you could save those school children and get a dollar for your efforts, would the unknown potential of the intended murderer be enough to stop you from killing that man? I think the children are more likely to cure cancer than the intended murderer, you know? If you're allowed to choose your victims, you could be a sort of paid vigilante. I'm not sure I'd trust myself enough to make the right decisions, but I wouldn't reject the power outright; it's worth a shot, no pun intended. [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:45: Message edited by: Lady Davida ] -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon Polaris = joy. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 13:01
Profile
In C&C Red Alert, the opening scene shows Albert Einstein successfully making time travel possible in the form of a pocket watch back in the 1930s-1940s era. Einstein traveled back in time to remove Hitler from history, hence giving away for Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union to march and conquer over Europe. This is Drew's joke explaination if anyone hasn't played the game. [ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 13:02: Message edited by: Jeros ] -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 5814
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 14:36
Profile
I am willing to kill anyone and anything that is a) trying to kill or seriously injure something else and b) going against my wishes. Some soldier in Iraq? Don't give a crap. Live or die, it doesn't matter. (for both sides) Some robber, shaking down a faceless person? BAMF! Good-bye. A guy who's trying to kill his girlfriend because she tried to kill his entire family? Divine protection for him if I can manage it. If some moron's shooting into a playground and I can't miss, uh... HAVE A NICE LIFE! Oh, sorry. It's over. Good try, though. I can put a price on lives: the life of another. And pinpoint murder is just too enticing to resist, especially with corrupt people all over the place. The only moral dilema I have here is whether "grievious injuries" are good enough to warrant death. Probably so. -------------------- I HAVE LOCATED MY CAPS LOCK KEY AND FEEL YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT! Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 6278
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 14:58
Profile
Homepage
a) 100 b) 0 Not out of greed tho. If I could remove 100 picked people for good forever and no one can connect it to me - Hell, I'd do it for free. There are just certain individuals I could really do without, some for the (for loss of a better phrase) greater good (surely not everyone would agree, but hey - MY choice who to pick *grin*), some for the improvement of my personal little part of the universe. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't donate the money, but keep it anyway. Business is business and money is money. -------------------- I outnumbered them one to thirty! Posts: 33 | Registered: Tuesday, September 6 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, September 7 2005 15:05
Profile
One post and one star? Someone is starting to get a little trigger happy around here. *you can sponsor this message for one dollar* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
