For how much money would you murder another human being? (you can choose the target and you won't get punished for it)

[noname223]

I asked myself whether a 50/50 chance to get a punishment would make this question more realistic. An example would be you are part of an intelligence service, you are a spy in a foreign country and get the mission to kill the head of government of let's say North Korea. I could think of more war mongering, megalomaniacs.

But for this thought experiment we say there won't be any legal punishment. This question should be more about ethics. (and conscience)

First of all I think you coud get a pretty bad guilty conscience if you take money to kill someone. However, I think I could live with that if I thought the person is genuinely evil, kills and harms thousands of million of people. Maybe the leader of Hamas would be good another example. In practice I would very likely fuck it up and get tortured for it.

If there was no punishment I think I could to it for half a million. Is this a bold, edgy take or isn't it? I don't think I have the skills to become a spy agent though. And I think a thought experiment is something completely different to actually do it.

 

[Ihatemonday]

Some people would do it for free, some would rather take their own lives. It's a very intricate question but I think that for most people the money doesn't play the main role in making that decision, at least not for me.

 

[Carrot]

$0

I think it is obvious to a reasonable non greedy human being that knows the truth, that the world would be better without some people. If evil was punished and the world was just, I wouldn't be here. If there was punishment for being evil, people would stop being evil because it wouldn't be worth it.

I'd prefer if people were "good" just because, but if people were "good" because that's the best-value option for them, I'd take that too.

 

[noname223]

$0

I think it is obvious to a reasonable non greedy human being that knows the truth, that the world would be better without some people. If evil was punished and the world was just, I wouldn't be here. If there was punishment for being evil, people would stop being evil because it wouldn't be worth it.

I'd prefer if people were "good" just because, but if people were "good" because that's the best-value option for them, I'd take that too.

So let's assume you get the offer by God to move back in time and kill Adolf Hitler before he becomes dictator of Germany. You would get one trillion US dollars which you could all donate to charities. Would this still be an offer you decline?

 

[Carrot]

So let's assume you get the offer by God to move back in time and kill Adolf Hitler before he becomes dictator of Germany. You would get one trillion US dollars which you could all donate to charities. Would this still be an offer you decline?

I'm confused, I need to clarify. The answer to the title "For how much money would you murder another human being? (you can choose the target and you won't get punished for it)" is $0, I'd do it for free, although I'm not a fan of solving problems this way, it would work. I didn't mean "there is no amount of money that could convince me". Just making sure that is clear.

So let's assume you get the offer by God to move back in time and kill Adolf Hitler before he becomes dictator of Germany. You would get one trillion US dollars which you could all donate to charities. Would this still be an offer you decline?

Interesting question, it's different from the one in the title.

The snap-answer is yes, obviously, but...

I'm not sure how the world would look like if Hitler was stopped, would people be peaceful for 80 or whatever years, how would The Soviet Union turn out? Would the entire world unite against it? Would nuclear weapons have been used somewhere? I'm not entirely sure how the world would have turned out if Hitler was stopped earlier, if the world would be better, although this seems like a strange thing to say. I also think that a lot of companies benefit from destruction and rebuilding, providing prosperity to others. Someones pain is another ones gain, which is incredibly disheartening.

I think that humanity having a really messed up lesson was beneficial for people, although a very painful one. Currently it seems like we are heading into a lot more wars, local or global ones, do people really need a "lesson" every century? That's sad. I think WW3 (assuming people survive and we won't nuke the entire planet) will unfortuantely benefit the USA in a messed up way, at the cost of others (Europe). You could ask "Could we not do that?" Well, that's not up to you or me.

Unfortunately people don't notice the true problem, which is allowing enourmous wealth being gathered by a few people, some of which will be evil.

Yes, I would go back and kill Hitler, for $1,000,000,000,000 or less.

I never thought about this, but I'm sure there are people that consider alternate historical timelines in depth, especially on such an important topic.

 

[noname223]

I'm confused, I need to clarify. The answer to the title "For how much money would you murder another human being? (you can choose the target and you won't get punished for it)" is $0, I'd do it for free, although I'm not a fan of solving problems this way, it would work. I didn't mean "there is no amount of money that could convince me". Just making sure that is clear.


Interesting question, it's different from the one in the title.

The snap-answer is yes, obviously, but...

I'm not sure how the world would look like if Hitler was stopped, would people be peaceful for 80 or whatever years, how would The Soviet Union turn out? Would the entire world unite against it? Would nuclear weapons have been used somewhere? I'm not entirely sure how the world would have turned out if Hitler was stopped earlier, if the world would be better, although this seems like a strange thing to say. I also think that a lot of companies benefit from destruction and rebuilding, providing prosperity to others. Someones pain is another ones gain, which is incredibly disheartening.

I think that humanity having a really messed up lesson was beneficial for people, although a very painful one. Currently it seems like we are heading into a lot more wars, local or global ones, do people really need a "lesson" every century? That's sad. I think WW3 (assuming people survive and we won't nuke the entire planet) will unfortuantely benefit the USA in a messed up way, at the cost of others (Europe). You could ask "Could we not do that?" Well, that's not up to you or me.

Unfortunately people don't notice the true problem, which is allowing enourmous wealth being gathered by a few people, some of which will be evil.

Yes, I would go back and kill Hitler, for $1,000,000,000,000 or less.

I never thought about this, but I'm sure there are people that consider alternate historical timelines in depth, especially on such an important topic.

Yeah I also thought it i slightly different to the title. One could argument though that the question in the title does not imply you would need to keep the money. For example as an effective altruist one could have the moral duty to take the offer if it does more good than harm to the world. And one had to negotiate the most out of it. I read because of such (or similar) conclusions effective altruism can be a dangerous ideology.

 

[whywere]

I could never ever hurt, much less kill someone else.

Money comes and goes, BUT one's conscious is forever and having to retire every evening with that on or real close to my thoughts is something that no amount of money, power or fame could ever equal.

Walter

 

[Carrot]

Yeah I also thought it i slightly different to the title. One could argument though that the question in the title does not imply you would need to keep the money. For example as an effective altruist one could have the moral duty to take the offer if it does more good than harm to the world. And one had to negotiate the most out of it. I read because of such (or similar) conclusions effective altruism can be a dangerous ideology.

Good point. My interpretation was keep the money in a selfish way. I'd do it for free, but the more money, the better. I could use money in a selfless way to make the world a better place.

I don't think it is a dangerous ideaology as long as you don't take it to an absurd level, I don't want to go into that at the moment, you oculd justify a lot of evil that way though.

I assume you meant "more good than harm".

 

[noname223]

Good point. My interpretation was keep the money in a selfish way. I'd do it for free, but the more money, the better. I could use money in a selfless way to make the world a better place.

I don't think it is a dangerous ideaology as long as you don't take it to an absurd level, I don't want to go into that at the moment, you oculd justify a lot of evil that way though.

I assume you meant "more good than harm".

Yes I meant that. Indeed.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

$0

I think it is obvious to a reasonable non greedy human being that knows the truth, that the world would be better without some people. If evil was punished and the world was just, I wouldn't be here. If there was punishment for being evil, people would stop being evil because it wouldn't be worth it.

I'd prefer if people were "good" just because, but if people were "good" because that's the best-value option for them, I'd take that too.

The issue is that evil is a social construct that changes over time. Along with that, most "evil" people are considered good by some and usually have their own sets of redeeming qualities. This goes into the fact that good and evil are also largely subjective. You might be considered evil by some for something as simple as being a user of this site. Sure, that neo-nazi might be labelled as an evil person by our, but others may see them as a good guy.

Killing off the "evil" people won't do shit because evil is subjective and people are generally too complex to be labelled as just good or evil. Along with that, these types of labels do not in any way address any of the reasons why people behave the way they do. This is important since getting into why people act the way they do is how we better find ways to address these issues and improve society as a whole. There is a reason why, in behaviour modification, they teach you not to use labels/traits when observing someone's behaviour. It leads to circular logic and keeps us from understanding why they behave the way they do.

This type of black-and-white, "good vs evil" mindset is one commonly pushed by those in power in order to keep people from questioning the actions of those around them more deeply. It creates this sort of "us vs them" mentality in people and often leads to the dehumanization of others. Why people act the way they do is generally very complex and can be due to a variety of factors, from trauma to survival to cultural differences to brain damage, and so on.

There is no such thing as good or evil people. There are just people.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

Like $100. Well, $100.50. I don't want to have to eat the 50c Cashapp fee. All hitpeople are paid via Cashapp. Probably.

 

[Carrot]

The issue is that evil is a social construct that changes over time. Along with that, most "evil" people are considered good by some and usually have their own sets of redeeming qualities. This goes into the fact that good and evil are also largely subjective. You might be considered evil by some for something as simple as being a user of this site. Sure, that neo-nazi might be labelled as an evil person by our, but others may see them as a good guy.

Killing off the "evil" people won't do shit because evil is subjective and people are generally too complex to be labelled as just good or evil. Along with that, these types of labels do not in any way address any of the reasons why people behave the way they do. This is important since getting into why people act the way they do is how we better find ways to address these issues and improve society as a whole. There is a reason why, in behaviour modification, they teach you not to use labels/traits when observing someone's behaviour. It leads to circular logic and keeps us from understanding why they behave the way they do.

This type of black-and-white, "good vs evil" mindset is one commonly pushed by those in power in order to keep people from questioning the actions of those around them more deeply. It creates this sort of "us vs them" mentality in people and often leads to the dehumanization of others. Why people act the way they do is generally very complex and can be due to a variety of factors, from trauma to survival to cultural differences to brain damage, and so on.

There is no such thing as good or evil people. There are just people.

I'm not in a mood to write a long thoughtfull reply, but ultimately there are evil people. Was Hitler evil? You can frame anything in any way if you try hard enough, but he was evil. Is Putin evil? Plenty of manipulative, greedy, power-hungry, deceiptive people. And you have a lot of people defending these kind of people for whatever reason (propaganda, fear, money or other).

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

The issue is that evil is a social construct that changes over time.

Nah. Relative morality is a social construct. Raping babies is evil in every era. Killing innocent people is also evil.

Killing off the "evil" people won't do shit because evil is subjective and people are generally too complex to be labelled as just good or evil.

Killing someone trying to rape or kill your family prevents you and your family from being raped and killed.

There is a reason why, in behaviour modification, they teach you not to use labels/traits when observing someone's behaviour.

Labels and trait identification are essential to pattern recognition. It is the cornerstone to how violent offenders with good evasive skills are "profiled" and eventually caught.

This type of black-and-white, "good vs evil" mindset is one commonly pushed by those in power in order to keep people from questioning the actions of those around them more deeply.

Therapizing lingo and projecting those value judgments onto evil doers doesn't change the nature of their acts. Sliding the scale from victim's rights to perpetuator rights has created a grey area of culturally suicidal empathy. There are powerful entities that benefit from the humanizing of evil people and blurring of the lines of what defines evil acts. Prison, rehabilitation and psychiatry to name a few or simply to allow even more evil people more wiggle room and acceptance to do as they please with less effort put into hiding.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Killing for money just feels very off. Although, I suppose soldiers do it all the time and we dress it up as something patriotic. (Different if they are defending their country of course.)

The moral question is more difficult. I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to assisinate someone- for money or not. However- let's say I found myself in a situation where I could kill someone I knew was responsible for attrocities. Would I do it? Possibly. If they were actually in the process of committing attrocities then- almost definitely.

Spoiler alert: A clip from the film: 'The Dead Zone':



I think it's complicated though. After watching 'Valkyrie', I asked my Dad why the plots to kill Hitler were so convoluted- bombs etc. Why didn't they just shoot him? But then, my Dad said it would have been important to take out some of the people surrounding him too- otherwise, they likely would have simply taken his place.

I think that's terribly important. If a 'dangerous' person looks like they need taking out- what happens after? Will anyone else take their place? Will it start retaliations and a war even? I don't think it's so simple as just plucking out the rotten apples. Plus- who gets to decide who the rotten ones are? How can we be sure they are any better?

 

[badkarma4618]

no amount of money could make me. i couldnt do it. im too much of a pussy. i accidentally saw a gore video a couple years ago and it messed me up for days. like i couldnt sleep, couldnt eat. the idea of actually killing someone would destroy me mentally. id probably lose my mind from the guilt. even if they were an evil person thats still a soul. i think id rather be broke forever than live with that on my conscience.

 

[Jiroscope]

For free. Someone who is an abuser, or rapist, or murderer but got away with it. Especially if it was against children.

 

[HarryCobean]

 

[Apathy79]

I can't think of anyone I would kill for any amount of money right now. But if someone seriously attacked me or someone I love, I'd probably kill them for nothing if I could get away with it. The main barrier now would be consequences.

 

[Bad Ending]

I would murder many people for free

 

[Custos]

Any amount, I would try and get as much as possible but would even do it for free. Would do it multiple times if I could. The world is better off without a lot of people. I would martyr myself.

 

[Chili]

3 million, write a will, congratulations to my brother who has been nothing but a support in my life. You'll never work again