I dunno ... when I think slamming a kitten to the ground, I dont think euthanize. I couldent kill a puppy ... unless it was already dying, even then...
To Helter-Skelter: that definitely is not what I would do if i had over 50 cats running around. Slamming them into the ground is hardly near humane. That is sick and cruel. Even if they cant afford euthenasia. I couldnt kill a puppy for 500k either.
The question here isn't the puppy or the money, but the more basic one. 'How much are your personal ethics and morals worth?' Someone beat me to the 'we've already established that, we're just negotiating price' comment. I've been in the situation where I've had to end the life of a sick animal, I'm also a carnivore, and very interested in where my food comes from, and how it's treated, pre-death. As with almost anything, this isn't a black and white question. How much of it is situational? People've said 'well, if it's sick, if it's dying already, etc'. To that I answer 'From the moment we are born, we begin to die.', so that, as a conditional modifier is fairly weak. Now if it were termed 'not before its time'...when is its time? There are ways that we, even those of us that say we wouldn't, would be able to justify it. How many of you, if we took out the money portion, and replaced it with a gun to your head, would say 'pop me and give the puppy to a good home'? Given that situation, I will not pretend that I'm a good or enlightened enough person to tell them to kill me and save the dog. Some questions I would need answered before I could accept the outcome into my morality. How imminent is the creature's death without my interference? If it were to be released at that very moment, and allowed to rejoin its mother, or be adopted by another person. Or would it be held until someone was willing to kill it? Would it be turned over to an overcrowded pound? My personal ethics forestall me from killing something that I'm not going to eat, unless it is diseased, and unable to survive on its own. Needless to say, I avoid killing insects (and people) for that very reason. I don't want to eat them. So as a given, if I killed the puppy, I would HAVE to eat it, to remove that psychological dissonance, to begin with. As for the money, no giant checks, none of that bs. I get the money FIRST. I also get the choice of how the animal dies. Going back to 'the puppy or you' I would kill the puppy. I would sit, and talk with it, apologize to it. Just as I've been known to do with an animal I've hunted. If it were a matter of the money, I would provide this solution. 'I take the dog with me, and it dies of old age.' The situation, as presented, is that of 'immediate death for .5 mil' No. I do not kill for pleasure, or for money, but I will kill for food. Had I not eaten in a month, Then yes, I'd do so for the food, and accept the money as a benefit. If I werent' allowed that route, then even starving, I wouldn't accept. I cannot give a hard and fast 'yes' or 'no' answer. To be brutally honest, and to risk alienating the people here, I have to say, that like most ethical situations...it depends.
I would do it, in a second. The only reason it's a puppy is because its cute and cuddly, to take advantage of peoples sympathy and compassion. If the question was "would you kill a rat for 500,000 dollars?", the vast majority of people would change their answer to "yes". For those that would not, and value every life equally, I respect that answer much more. Those others are simple showing how easily manipulated they really are.
If someone said kill this puppy for $500,000 I would say is that all I have to do. An to satisfy the person I would bash that pups head in with a baseball bat and then chainsaw the other pieces. How can anyone say they wouldn't do this? I don't understand how you can say no I'd rather be broke and hungry than be livin the good life.
Because some of us have respect for other life in addition to our own? Plus, I've seen first hand that money doesn't buy happiness. I wouldn't kill something so I can have HBO on my TV... Sorry, I have a soul.
Anybody who said no to this is a retard. First off if you're concerned about the animal look at it this way. With that kind of money you could adopt every homeless puppy within a 500 mile radius or even better help some people who really need the money. I try to respect all forms of life but I have some kind of bias for humans (probobly because I am one ) I'd kill every puppy in America to save one person's life. Do you know how many starving people could be fed with that money? A fucking shitload.
Then maybe the sick fuck offering the money should donate it to those people rather than paying someone to kill something with it. This is a dumb scenario anyway...
I think 500 000 people would give a dollar to save a puppy. I would not do it. I could not do it. Perhaps it is stupid to choose this over the money, but really, whoever had the money to offer it to someone to kill a dog, I would not want to associate with them anyways.
OE is the best http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=8T0GeVEN5UA idk if someone else already posted the url but just in case
No way I could do it, even with all the animals I could help with the money; that still wouldn't erase what I did to a defenseless animal- no matter what kind it was. I wouldn't do it even if it was a giant rat, ( even though they do give me the creeps) because killing anything or anyone isn't something I'm willing to do for money. Only way I would ever consider killing anyone/thing would be in defense of my personal safety, or someone else's. This is kind of off topic, but this dicussion reminds me of a twilight zone episode I saw once; one of the newer ones- not the orginal. This woman had an opportunity to travel back in time and kill hitler, therefore preventing the holocaust; but she couldn't do it when he was an adult- she could only do it when he was an infant. I think that's another good example of how easily people's decisions can be swayed and manipulated, as somone else pointed out.
I couldn't do it. I usually kill a fly or a bee if one gets too close, but I couldn't kill a puppy, or any form of big animal for that fact.
Provided I could kill the animal swiftly/humanely, I'd do it for 1000 bucks. And I don't particularly need the money. As someone else has suggested, the money could be put to charitable use. I mean, it's just a dog. How many are killed daily due to overpopulation (at animal shelters, etc)? You think animal control workers are paid $500 000 per minute...? Is everyone who is opposed to this idea a vegetarian? Personally, I don't eat mammals. For someone who DOES - who, for example, would pay money to chew and swallow a chunk of slaughtered pig flesh - to be disgusted by this question... I think it's an example of many humans' distaste at the idea of killing something that they find physically appealing. That is to say, most people (myself included) think puppies are cute - cows and pigs, much less so. To base a system of ethics, specifically the question of 'to kill or not to kill', on our personal opinions of visual attraction seems well beneath what I hope humans will eventually acheive. Peacelove, Aldousage
It's rather like what dennis leary said during his act 'We should jsut have interviews for all these fuckin animals. What're you? 'I'm an otter...' and what do you do? 'I swim around and do cute little human things with my hands......' you're free to go. Next. 'I'm a cow' get on the fucking truck. 'but I'm a cow' you're a baseball glove and fuckin cheeseburger. get on the truck, we'll make a leather jacket out of you, and then kill each other for the god damned jacket.'