BiscuitTrouser said:
Aris Khandr said:
I don't care about random strangers. However, I am also not a murderer. I won't intentionally kill someone. That's the inherent difference between your hypothetical and the original. One requires intentionally harming someone, the other requires simply valuing your pet more than the stranger.
Please read my post:
"If someone went "Well i care about the person but i care about the dog more" id understand. Thats perfectly reasonable and it explains why they wouldnt pick the 10 dollars. When someone goes "I dont care at all about random people and id save the dog" i think wait a minute. If you dont care about random people at all then youd care about any material possession more right? So if given the choice between a life and some money youd pick the money, caring about one but not the other?"
If you choose the dog that says nothing about you really. Nothing special.
However if you choose the dog and say "I choose the dog because the stranger has ZERO value to me, not because i value both and the dog means more" it shows that you would value ANYTHING (even 10 dollars) above a random human.
If you place zero value on a human life and 10 dollars of value on a 10 dollar bill why would you ever pick the worthless human life over the worthwhile money? Youve just admitted that your value system places objects higher than random people. Therefor if you had to make a choice between material goods and people youd pick material goods.
The answer to the question in the OP means little. The motivation reveals a lot.
So a person has to couch their response in language so specific that you don't have to try to read between the lines to reckon they wouldn't Merc out at the slightest opportunity?
Sir, you are either being deliberately disingenuous or lazy.
To say that one cares little about a stranger is not the same as saying one values material gain over said stranger (whatever the number of either).
What is more, your rather egregious example fails to reconcile a major factor that would influence a person's decision were they given this rather suspect opportunity to Merc Out. That is to say, you forget that people think.
Possible thoughts:
"Wow, this is all very convenient."
"Can I trust this person?"
"Who are these people, and why is it so important that I'm the one that pushes the button?"
"Why is it so important that they die, or that they suffer so?"
"Why me?"
"Who profits from this?"
"Who's acutally going to get blamed, if not me?"
"While there will be no immediate rammifications, what will this be setting in motion?"
"This can't be right."
"This person is lying to me."
"Get the hell out, now."
"Is this person going to kill me if I refuse? They set this whole unsavory thing up. Why wouldn't they?"
Please note, none of these thoughts are granting any inherent, personal value to the people being killed.
Were people as simple as you claim. The world would be so easy to deal with.