Quote:
Originally Posted by uh-oh
nah man, its just the framing of the question blows, which is why you had to change it. what you changed it to is terribly vague as well. 18 billion dollars worth of saving animals. what animals? how are they saved? is it going to conservation of the forest or some shit? or going to shelters? etc. either way the moral impact of murdering a puppy PERSONALLY wouldn't outweigh some non personal saving of animals in general
with 18 billion dollars given to you though, and not some intangible blanket statement of saving animals, it would be so easy to get over killing a puppy though, because i think you aren't grasping how much money that is. you could personally do so much good and still be filthy rich on top of all of it
plus animals die every day b. you could rationalize anything while being able to literally afford to do ANYTHING. id stomp a baby out too, if in the hypothetical land it wouldn't be murder/i wouldnt be punished for it. its nothing against an animal in general. life is cheap. its a cold world doggie
|
That was exactly my point was to be vague b.c thought experiments are blown out of proportion, and exaggerated themes that don't occur in reality but simply make you question yourself. I could have wrote a novel about "The Mystery of the Man who Stomped the puppy to death in the streets in order to save 18 billion animals" and would have the premise of the movie like Men in Black where a shadow government goes around asking people to do it, not different to that movie THE BOX which was basically put in to a more realistic based scenario, i wanted it to be exaggerated.