• 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
Drug dealers don't kill themselves because they kill each other before they get the chance to.

No; I don't really get the point. All your examples seem disconnected from the actual problem, Grimm... But, okay. It may be just me who doesn't get it.

The larger point is that pure capitalism can have destructive tendencies. The question is: to the forces of supply and demand always lead to net benefit, or do they sometimes cause harm (for example, when you have an insane sadist with a lot of money).

I'm using the most extreme examples in order to make a point, but it is my belief that, on a smaller scale, such things happen every day. Transactions are NOT always done on a level playing field.

I believe it is up to society to regulate such transactions.

That said, I agree it's a complex question.
 
The OP asks if two consenting adults can make a transaction together that involves nobody but themselves, the answer is yes and is always going to be yes. Be it $10 or $100,000,000.

As I said, puppies can't consent.

Your hypothetical gets further from your own original post.

Fine, you didn't like that hypothetical. Try this one. What if I wanted to pay you to convince your dying grandmother to consent to pull the plug on herself, and to film it so that I can watch? Should that be legal?
 
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?
Prostitutes exist whether it is legal or not--and when it is legal there tends to be less disease. Regardless, people have the right to choose to work in dangerous or unhealthy professions.

Would I like to get rid of my eyes for a million bucks? No. Would I like my kids to? No. Does liberty mean that I get to make things illegal that I don't like? No. If consent is given, people can do what they want. Stop trying to control other people.
 
Fine, you didn't like that hypothetical. Try this one. What if I wanted to pay you to convince your dying grandmother to consent to pull the plug on herself, and to film it so that I can watch? Should that be legal?

It is sick and twisted. That being said, if I so desired, yes, it should be legal.
 
It is sick and twisted. That being said, if I so desired, yes, it should be legal.

If it's sick and twisted, why should it be legal? Don't we have laws in order to uphold a stable society?

In my opinion, no way in hell should something like that be legal.
 
Have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps the illegality of prostitution is a contributing factor to the psychological misfortunes of prostitutes? What percentage of prostitutes actual commit suicide? And how is equating depression with blindness a remotely valid equivalence?
 
The larger point is that pure capitalism can have destructive tendencies. The question is: to the forces of supply and demand always lead to net benefit, or do they sometimes cause harm (for example, when you have an insane sadist with a lot of money).

I'm using the most extreme examples in order to make a point, but it is my belief that, on a smaller scale, such things happen every day. Transactions are NOT always done on a level playing field.

I believe it is up to society to regulate such transactions.

That said, I agree it's a complex question.

That's a very, very large point, indeed...

Demand and supply doesn't always lead the benefit of everyone. It can't. However, the exchange of a service for money, if it's done in a harmless way and serves some utility--be it pleasure or anything else--, could and should be allowed by law. The only cases when it's not is when a society is too conservative, which I believe is the case when we speak of the US, or when its consequences are yet uncertain and need to be thoroughly analysed (this is the case of prostitution, weed, firearms, etc.).

But I'm glad we both agree that it's a complex question, because it really is; not because it's morally wrong or right, for that's relative, but because of the consequences it will result in. That's the way I see it.
 
If it's sick and twisted, why should it be legal? Don't we have laws in order to uphold a stable society?

In my opinion, no way in hell should something like that be legal.

Because people should have the liberty to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberties of others.
 
Prostitutes exist whether it is legal or not--and when it is legal there tends to be less disease. Regardless, people have the right to choose to work in dangerous or unhealthy professions.

Would I like to get rid of my eyes for a million bucks? No. Would I like my kids to? No. Does liberty mean that I get to make things illegal that I don't like? No. If consent is given, people can do what they want. Stop trying to control other people.

I would argue that the one trying to control other people is the man paying for a prostitute, or the sadist willing to offer someone a million bucks for their eyeballs.
 
The larger point is that pure capitalism can have destructive tendencies. The question is: to the forces of supply and demand always lead to net benefit, or do they sometimes cause harm (for example, when you have an insane sadist with a lot of money).

I'm using the most extreme examples in order to make a point, but it is my belief that, on a smaller scale, such things happen every day. Transactions are NOT always done on a level playing field.

I believe it is up to society to regulate such transactions.

That said, I agree it's a complex question.
If people would rather have a million dollars than two eyes, meaning they subjectively feel they would be better off that way, the free market is not making them worse off. It is making them better off. You may not like it, but you don't get objectively define what makes people better off. All individuals defines that for themselves.
 
I would argue that the one trying to control other people is the man paying for a prostitute, or the sadist willing to offer someone a million bucks for their eyeballs.
That would be silly, because the people are voluntarily participating and nobody is forcing them to make one choice over another--so they are not being controlled.
 
Because people should have the liberty to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberties of others.

Yeah, but it's not that simple. A buck isn't always a buck. I could wipe my ass with a 10 dollar bill and not care. To a homeless bum, that 10 bucks is worth a lot more than it is to me. Therefore, any transaction I have with that homeless man is tilted in my favor.
 
That would be silly, because the people are voluntarily participating and nobody is forcing them to make one choice over another--so they are not being controlled.

That's a bit simplistic. A buck isn't always a buck. I could wipe my ass with a 10 dollar bill and not care. To a homeless bum, that 10 bucks is worth a lot more than it is to me. Therefore, any transaction I have with that homeless man is tilted in my favor.
 
That's a bit simplistic. A buck isn't always a buck. I could wipe my ass with a 10 dollar bill and not care. To a homeless bum, that 10 bucks is worth a lot more than it is to me. Therefore, any transaction I have with that homeless man is tilted in my favor.
It is that simplistic. The homeless man can always say no, so the sadist is not controlling him or aggressing against him. If I think I will be better off blind with a million bucks, so be it. It doesn't matter how much that buck is worth relative to you. What matters is how much it is worth relative to the person making the choice. You can say I am making a bad choice...but its still my choice so I am not being controlled.
 
Yeah, but it's not that simple. A buck isn't always a buck. I could wipe my ass with a 10 dollar bill and not care. To a homeless bum, that 10 bucks is worth a lot more than it is to me. Therefore, any transaction I have with that homeless man is tilted in my favor.

And the homeless person would know that. I think paying $10 for anything at McDonald's is ridiculous, but McDonald's has a lot of money and can set the prices as they see fit and I, on occasion, will pay for it.
 
It is that simplistic. The homeless man can always say no, so the sadist is not controlling him or aggressing against him. If I think I will be better off blind with a million bucks, so be it. It doesn't matter how much that buck is worth relative to you. What matters is how much it is worth relative to the person making the choice. You can say I am making a bad choice...but its still my choice so I am not being controlled.

Whereas I think that no person should have the power, regardless of their wealth, to cause someone else to deliberately harm themselves. Nobody should be allowed to improperly influence another human being in such a way.
 
And the homeless person would know that. I think paying $10 for anything at McDonald's is ridiculous, but McDonald's has a lot of money and can set the prices as they see fit and I, on occasion, will pay for it.

Just because they know that doesn't mean they don't need that 10 bucks a lot more than I do. That's why I have more power. I can walk away. I can tear up the 10 dollar bill in front of them. They need what I have.

That's where the uneven playing field comes from.
 
What if you offered a more realistic scenario?

part of the reason many prostitutes suffer is precisely BECAUSE it is illegal. High dollar hookers do just fine, some even put themselves through college. Think about it...getting paid WELL to have sex. Living in an environment where it was safe, legal, controlled, hell, even a respected profession. No need for pimps or back alley ways, no being forced into a job you hated...respectable income, and you could have a tax revenue stream.

Funny thing is...and Ive said it before...if men could make a living at it it would be legal and they would offer college degrees.
 
Just because they know that doesn't mean they don't need that 10 bucks a lot more than I do. That's why I have more power. I can walk away. I can tear up the 10 dollar bill in front of them. They need what I have.

That's where the uneven playing field comes from.
Uneven playing fields aren't illegal.
 
What if you offered a more realistic scenario?

part of the reason many prostitutes suffer is precisely BECAUSE it is illegal. High dollar hookers do just fine, some even put themselves through college. Think about it...getting paid WELL to have sex. Living in an environment where it was safe, legal, controlled, hell, even a respected profession. No need for pimps or back alley ways, no being forced into a job you hated...respectable income, and you could have a tax revenue stream.

Funny thing is...and Ive said it before...if men could make a living at it it would be legal and they would offer college degrees.


I like extreme scenarios because they paint black-and-white pictures, and force you to figure out where you stand on the issue.

Should one person be able to pay another person to deliberately harm themselves?
 
I like extreme scenarios because they paint black-and-white pictures, and force you to figure out where you stand on the issue.

Should one person be able to pay another person to deliberately harm themselves?
Ever watch Jackass? Youtube? hell, people are doing it for free.

Its precisely because you only offer the 'extreme' as your cited example that makes your point...non.
 
Whereas I think that no person should have the power, regardless of their wealth, to cause someone else to deliberately harm themselves. Nobody should be allowed to improperly influence another human being in such a way.
People have the right to harm themselves or put themselves in harms way if they choose to do so. If somebody offered me 1 million dollars if I cut off my small toe, I would do it. And if you tried making that illegal, you would be the one trying to control me--not the guy offering me the money. You don't have a right to make choices illegal that you yourself wouldn't make. What you subjectively think is not objective truth. Period.
 
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?

It would be immoral and illegal for any doctor to participate in such a twisted plan.

I also think it should be illegal, legal adult prostitution cannot be compared to people paying for other people to disfigure themselves for money.
 
Back
Top Bottom