• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

Should the sadistic billionaire's offer be legal?


  • Total voters
    30
I guess it depends on what behavior you consider 'drunk'.

For me, I've always differentiated between someone who was "drunk" and someone who was just "buzzed." To me, drunk is stumbling around, slurring your words, being obnoxious, perhaps throwing up (but some people don't throw up). A lot of times, they just reek of alcohol too, like they've bathed in it. Yuck! That is a HUGE turn off for me. :shrug: A couple of drinks, fine, but if you're having more than that then chances are you're getting drunk.

As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of drunk people. :lol:
 
This is in direct response to the "should prostitution be legal" thread, and is intended to make you think. It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession.

Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting. Fine, but how far are you willing to take this logic?

Here is a hypothetical question, answer it "yes" or "no."



Suppose a sadistic billionaire went around offering poor people a million dollars each to have their eyes removed. The procedure would be carried out by a licensed plastic surgeon, under sedation, in a certified medical facility. Should that be legal? Both parties are consenting.

What if the sadistic billionaire offered one of your parents, or your adult children, and they accepted? Should that be legal?

What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?

Is it simply a case of two consenting adults involved in a financial transaction, or is there more to it? Is the sadistic billionaire taking advantage of the poor person's problems?

What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?
These people are. or are possibly, impaired and thetrefore cannot make sound decisions for the themselves. They need to be, and, generally, are, protected by law from things like this.

Otherwise? I see no moral issue. Have at it.
 
I'm curious where this ends?

Why stop at prostitution and eye-gouging?

There are countless professions that require someone of limited means to perform some inherantly risky job in exchange for money.

What about the fireman rushing into a burning building in order to save the life of a millionairess debutante?

What about the inner-city kid working his way up the the amature boxing circut toward a chance at a prize fight?

What about a guy manning a swordfishing boat on the North Atlantic?

Where do we draw the line between jobs that are potentially dangerous and should be illegal and those that are of equal or even greater danger but should be perfectly legal?

Or is there no line?

Should it be illegal to assume any degree of risk, or expose one's self to any degree of danger, in exchange for recompense?
 
If they satisfy the conditions for legal consent (are not under influence/threat, are not impaired in decision-making) then yes. And I agree that prostitution should be legal. Let me go find that poll.
 
Back
Top Bottom