How much would someone have to pay you to kill someone (random person)?

[David S]

The point is once you say yes you are a murderer.

Its good to see so many respondents said no- not at any price.

No, you're not guilty of a crime until you commit it.  And of those that said "no," probably half are lying.

Ever hear of conspiracy to commit murder?
Besides if you accept the premise that you would do it then all that stands in the way is the right offer.

BTW I'd be much more inclined to believe the ones who said yes are lying.

BTW2 What price do you put on your soul?

[Richard]

Conspiracy to commit murder isn't, or rather, shouldn't be a crime.  No one was hurt.  I do not buy into victimless crimes.  You cannot be guilty of a crime before committing it.

I voted yes because I cannot in good faith say 100% for sure that I wouldn't accept such an offer.  I've never been in such a situation so it is all hypothetical.  I hope though, that I'd say no.

[The Duke]

I don't think more money would convince me after I'd said no to a certain amount.  What is the practical diffrence between $100 million and $100 billion?

I said never, unless the buyer could justify why this person deserved to die anyway.

[Gabu]

I'm not really sure if I could even kill someone who deserved it, so I'm definitely sure I couldn't kill some random person.

[Vincent]

No amount

regardless of the money, I would still have to live with myself.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it were a totally random person and I could be satisfied that I would not be caught, $100 million.  However, I can’t imagine that I would ever be convinced of both of the propositions that I would not be caught and that I would actually get $100 million, so I can’t say that I’d ever do it.

If it were a specific person, I could see doing it for as little as $1 million if I were convinced that I was saving a judge and jury the trouble of sentencing him to death themselves.

[Ebowed]

No price.  I'd never be able to rid myself of the guilt; no amount of money can do that.

[Inverted Things]

The point is once you say yes you are a murderer.

Its good to see so many respondents said no- not at any price.

No, you're not guilty of a crime until you commit it.  And of those that said "no," probably half are lying.

Ever hear of conspiracy to commit murder?
Besides if you accept the premise that you would do it then all that stands in the way is the right offer.

BTW I'd be much more inclined to believe the ones who said yes are lying.

BTW2 What price do you put on your soul?

I'm not conspiring to commit murder. I am saying that I would conspire for $1,000,000.

As for the price on my soul, I'm not much for metaphysics so the soul is a non-issue for me.

[nclib]

I would never accept money to kill someone.

[David S]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

That is the most convoluted logic I've ever heard.
This is what happens when you have a collectivist attitude and you don't respect individual rights. You're willing to murder innocent people in the name of the common good. By your reasoning the government should kill everyone who has over $100 million and redistribute their wealth to poor people. Maybe that's how communist countries become such awful tyrannys.

[A18]

regardless of the money, I would still have to live with myself.

With $100 million, I'm sure you could hire a butler.

[angus]

depends on the situation.  I'd never kill anyone.  but if I were a soldier in a time of war, well then I think $19753 per year plus medical and dental benefits would suffice.  Or, if I were an obstetrician, and I was afforded the opportunity to help control the population by snuffing out a fetus, then about $208000 per year, minus malpractice insurance premiums would suffice.  Then again, I am not, and would never consider being, a soldier or a physician, as I'm not too keen on getting my hands dirty.  So I can pretty safely say Not For Any Price.  Killing's nasty business, but somebody has to do it.  Just glad it's not me.

[Hitchabrut]

Never if it was a random person. But if it was a child molester, rapist, murderer, or person who solt secrets to the Soviets, then I would kill them for no money.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

That is the most convoluted logic I've ever heard.
This is what happens when you have a collectivist attitude and you don't respect individual rights. You're willing to murder innocent people in the name of the common good. By your reasoning the government should kill everyone who has over $100 million and redistribute their wealth to poor people. Maybe that's how communist countries become such awful tyrannys.

There's no reason to kill everyone with over $100 million.  I do think their wealth should be redistributed, but this can of course be done non-violently through the tax system.  But the question the initial post didn't leave that as an option. 

Governments choose to murder innocent people in the name of the common good all the time...what do you think war is?   Corporations do it too when they balance cost and safety features, or initiate construction projects where there are likely to be fatalies.

[MaC]

yeah, I'm sorry, my soul, sense of decency, and foresight cannot be sold.  However, if you don't care about pay, there's always military service.  We're at war right now, you can go and kill all the militant islamics you want, even better, you'll get praised for it.

[Nym90]

NickG raises some interesting points. I generally agree slightly more with collectivism than I do with libertarianism, but not strongly enough that I would ever kill anyone who was innocent, that's for sure. Not to mention that I could never actually bring myself to do it, in any event, or to be complicit in it.

I agree with Angus; I couldn't kill someone even if they did deserve it. It's just not my style, I guess. Luckily, not everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses as myself, and of course that is true of every person in the world. Diversity is a good thing.

[David S]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

That is the most convoluted logic I've ever heard.
This is what happens when you have a collectivist attitude and you don't respect individual rights. You're willing to murder innocent people in the name of the common good. By your reasoning the government should kill everyone who has over $100 million and redistribute their wealth to poor people. Maybe that's how communist countries become such awful tyrannys.

There's no reason to kill everyone with over $100 million.  I do think their wealth should be redistributed, but this can of course be done non-violently through the tax system. 

OK here is my curse on you; May you work your butt off to become filthy rich and then may government confiscate all of it and redistribute it to people who did nothing to earn it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
In war we do not assume the enemy is innocent. We assume that he is trying to kill us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all human endeavors there is risk. When you drive your car there is risk that you might accidently kill someone. In any construction project there is risk that someone may be killed. If we don't accept that risk then we would still be living in caves, and  the death rate would be far higher.

But none of that has anything to do with killing an innocent person for money. In my opinion your philosophy is what the communists use to justify killing the bourgeoisie in the name of the common good.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

That is the most convoluted logic I've ever heard.
This is what happens when you have a collectivist attitude and you don't respect individual rights. You're willing to murder innocent people in the name of the common good. By your reasoning the government should kill everyone who has over $100 million and redistribute their wealth to poor people. Maybe that's how communist countries become such awful tyrannys.

There's no reason to kill everyone with over $100 million.  I do think their wealth should be redistributed, but this can of course be done non-violently through the tax system.

OK here is my curse on you; May you work your butt off to become filthy rich and then may government confiscate all of it and redistribute it to people who did nothing to earn it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In war we do not assume the enemy is innocent. We assume that he is trying to kill us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all human endeavors there is risk. When you drive your car there is risk that you might accidently kill someone. In any construction project there is risk that someone may be killed. If we don't accept that risk then we would still be living in caves, and  the death rate would be far higher.

But none of that has anything to do with killing an innocent person for money. In my opinion your philosophy is what the communists use to justify killing the bourgeoisie in the name of the common good.

People who are killed in auto accident are "innocent".  When car manufacturers decline to add a certain safety feature to a car because it is too expensive, they are killing innocent people for money, but the killing is justified because of the economic good this creates (assuming people make rationale decisions and all the risks are disclosed).   All of these decisions require use to place a price on human life.  Governments and corporations do it routinely, and we even do it everyday when we engage in risky behavior.  Isn't that what this question is asking?   The fact that you are being asked to kill a specific person rather than an unknown, random person doesn't make the moral dilemma any different.

[Jake]

LOL, if the car doesn't come with side curtain air bags, don't buy it. Can't be simpler than that.

[David S]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

That is the most convoluted logic I've ever heard.
This is what happens when you have a collectivist attitude and you don't respect individual rights. You're willing to murder innocent people in the name of the common good. By your reasoning the government should kill everyone who has over $100 million and redistribute their wealth to poor people. Maybe that's how communist countries become such awful tyrannys.

There's no reason to kill everyone with over $100 million.  I do think their wealth should be redistributed, but this can of course be done non-violently through the tax system.

OK here is my curse on you; May you work your butt off to become filthy rich and then may government confiscate all of it and redistribute it to people who did nothing to earn it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In war we do not assume the enemy is innocent. We assume that he is trying to kill us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all human endeavors there is risk. When you drive your car there is risk that you might accidently kill someone. In any construction project there is risk that someone may be killed. If we don't accept that risk then we would still be living in caves, and  the death rate would be far higher.

But none of that has anything to do with killing an innocent person for money. In my opinion your philosophy is what the communists use to justify killing the bourgeoisie in the name of the common good.

People who are killed in auto accident are "innocent".  When car manufacturers decline to add a certain safety feature to a car because it is too expensive, they are killing innocent people for money, but the killing is justified because of the economic good this creates (assuming people make rationale decisions and all the risks are disclosed).   All of these decisions require use to place a price on human life.  Governments and corporations do it routinely, and we even do it everyday when we engage in risky behavior.  Isn't that what this question is asking?   The fact that you are being asked to kill a specific person rather than an unknown, random person doesn't make the moral dilemma any different.

Well let me tell you how it works in the eyes of the law. If a company make a bad decision on the cost / safety balance the company may get sued out of their shorts. But if you pull the trigger on an innocent person for money they call it murder and they throw your ass in the slammer for life or they hang you. So the law has a very different view of it than you do.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think the question is a fair one...at some point, you have to ask yourself, how many lives could I save with this money...you know, how many starving kids could you feed, etc.? 

If you are unwilling to do it for any amount of money merely because you wouldn't respect yourself, then you are in some ways being selfish to the people who could actually use that money.  But the amount of money would have to be large enough that you could be substantially certain that the good you would do would far outweight the evil of murder, and any of the risks you are undergoing yourself. 

Of the choices, I would peg it at $100 million.

That is the most convoluted logic I've ever heard.
This is what happens when you have a collectivist attitude and you don't respect individual rights. You're willing to murder innocent people in the name of the common good. By your reasoning the government should kill everyone who has over $100 million and redistribute their wealth to poor people. Maybe that's how communist countries become such awful tyrannys.

There's no reason to kill everyone with over $100 million.  I do think their wealth should be redistributed, but this can of course be done non-violently through the tax system.

OK here is my curse on you; May you work your butt off to become filthy rich and then may government confiscate all of it and redistribute it to people who did nothing to earn it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In war we do not assume the enemy is innocent. We assume that he is trying to kill us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all human endeavors there is risk. When you drive your car there is risk that you might accidently kill someone. In any construction project there is risk that someone may be killed. If we don't accept that risk then we would still be living in caves, and  the death rate would be far higher.

But none of that has anything to do with killing an innocent person for money. In my opinion your philosophy is what the communists use to justify killing the bourgeoisie in the name of the common good.

People who are killed in auto accident are "innocent".  When car manufacturers decline to add a certain safety feature to a car because it is too expensive, they are killing innocent people for money, but the killing is justified because of the economic good this creates (assuming people make rationale decisions and all the risks are disclosed).   All of these decisions require use to place a price on human life.  Governments and corporations do it routinely, and we even do it everyday when we engage in risky behavior.  Isn't that what this question is asking?   The fact that you are being asked to kill a specific person rather than an unknown, random person doesn't make the moral dilemma any different.

Well let me tell you how it works in the eyes of the law. If a company make a bad decision on the cost / safety balance the company may get sued out of their shorts. But if you pull the trigger on an innocent person for money they call it murder and they throw your ass in the slammer for life or they hang you. So the law has a very different view of it than you do.

Obviously, but I didn't think the orginal poster was asking for a legal opinion.   The law does allow a "defense of others" defense for murder, but the lives you are saving have to be in immediate danger.  Otherwise, the defense would be too easy to exploit. 

On ther other hand, if you killed someone for $100 million, and then used the $100 million to feed starving children, I'm not sure you would get convicted by a jury.

[David S]

Your philosophy is a principle of communism, that individual rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. Examples of countries that subscribed to those principles are U.S.S.R., China, and North Korea. All of them are noted for horrible human rights abuses, and mass slaughter of their people.

The United States on the other hand, still believes in the principle of individual rights (at least so far). Ignore for a moment the fact that our belief in freedom and the free market system has caused our economy to beat the pants off any of the communist countries. Looking only at the human condition, and the degree of rights and freedom, which do you prefer the U.S. or the communist countries which employ your strategy of sacrificing individual rights for the common good?