• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes to everything.
 

straykatz

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
576
Location
Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just goes to show that money can buy anything that an owner is willing to put a price on.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The concept of consenting is required to have the ability to make correct decisions. So mentally handicapped or people under the influence can not make the right decisions.

If you up your offer, maybe I'll take the deal. You have a billion so how about 100 million as your offer?

Just go to a Payday loan center and you'll see the rich screwing the poor with 400% interest. It's legal - disgusting - but legal. So, sure.


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?
 

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Just goes to show that money can buy anything that an owner is willing to put a price on.
But should it be that way? Should we really be allowed to take advantage of each other in such a way? I think we need to acknowledge that certain people in society are more vulnerable than others, and offer them some sort of protection.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But should it be that way? Should we really be allowed to take advantage of each other in such a way? I think we need to acknowledge that certain people in society are more vulnerable than others, and offer them some sort of protection.
By restricting their liberty? Hmm...
 

FreedomFromAll

Post Political parties
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
16,066
Reaction score
4,431
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
So is prostitution. Yet most seem to think that law is wrong.
Not everywhere in the States is it illegal. And the morality of prostitution is subjective. It can be shown that whats considered mainstream dating can be a form of prostitution. So really where is this subjective line drawn? SHould it be illegal for people on dates to spend money on their date?

If it is your organs why can't you sell them?
Perhaps because of where it could lead? Ghettos with hacked up poor people most likely.
 

FreedomFromAll

Post Political parties
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
16,066
Reaction score
4,431
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
What liberty do they really have, if they're so desperate for money that they would sell their gift of sight?
Perhaps they would use the money for a upgrade to better eyes? Ones mans junk is anothers treasure?
 

kingsbridge

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
58
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You redirected me here, so I'll do you the favour of replying to these questions.

You ask for a yes-or-no answer, but you know that's hard to do. (That's also why I asked what the cons of the legalisation of prostitution would be.)

If I have to give such a short answer, though, I'd have to say no. You mention the psychological disorders, the suicides, etc., as if it's a given fact that it happens in all cases, to all prostitutes, under any circumstances. But that's not the case. Removing someone's eyes, however, cannot be done without... well, removing someone's eyes. Many prostitutes, however, don't show any signs of mental illnesses or suicidal tendencies. Plus, if it were made legal, I think it'd be more likely for those problems to diminish rather than grow.

Lastly, a lot of people have eating disorders, and that doesn't mean that food should be made illegal, though it can be the primary cause of the problem. People need to eat; these girls either desperately need money to eat, or they enjoy doing it, or they are forced to do it (but that could be partly taken care of by legalising it). They're not killing anyone; they are simply providing a service. It's a hole and something entering it. If that were so dramatic, golf would be a great sport.
 

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Perhaps they would use the money for a upgrade to better eyes? Ones mans junk is anothers treasure?
Eye transplants don't exist. Anyway, it's my hypothetical. In this situation, the billionaire is simply a sadist, he feeds the eyeballs to his pampered dog Fluffy.
 

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You redirected me here, so I'll do you the favour of replying to these questions.

You ask for a yes-or-no answer, but you know that's hard to do. (That's also why I asked what the cons of the legalisation of prostitution would be.)

If I have to give such a short answer, though, I'd have to say no. You mention the psychological disorders, the suicides, etc., as if it's a given fact that it happens in all cases, to all prostitutes, under any circumstances. But that's not the case. Removing someone's eyes, however, cannot be done without... well, removing someone's eyes. Many prostitutes, however, don't show any signs of mental illnesses or suicidal tendencies. Plus, if it were made legal, I think it'd be more likely for those problems to diminish rather than grow.

Lastly, a lot of people have eating disorders, and that doesn't mean that food should be made illegal, though it can be the primary cause of the problem. People need to eat; these girls either desperately need money to eat, or they enjoy doing it, or they are forced to do it (but that could be partly taken care of by legalising it). They're not killing anyone; they are simply providing a service. It's a hole and something entering it. If that were so dramatic, golf would be a great sport.
We know prostitution causes a wide array of psychological problems (to see some of the data, I'd redirect you back to the original thread where I've posted some). It's not simply an incidental relationship - real people are actually getting hurt, even dying, every day as a result.

In a sense, Johns are like the sadist in my example: they don't care if they are hurting someone else, as long as they get their pleasure out of the experience. However, the pleasure they derive is far outweighed by the pain derived by the victim (the prostitute).
 

DashingAmerican

Civil Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
986
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?
No to these two only, considering both of these people are not mentally fit and therefore cannot be held liable to a binding contract.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?
My support for the legalization of prostitution is premised on the fact that prostitution is real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Because it is a real, immovable, pervasive part of society, it ought to be legalized so that it can be regulated in order to reduce the damage that it does to prostitutes, their clients and society, at large. Sadistic billionaires who pay people for their eyes are not a real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Therefore, I see no benefit to making the actions you describe legal.
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What liberty do they really have, if they're so desperate for money that they would sell their gift of sight?
It sounds like they're only desperate for money because you won't let them make $1,000,000.00.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No on children. Conditional on mentally impaired, if it's self impairment or outside their control matters IMO. The issue in all such cases is we pay a price as a society in making it illegal (see prohibition type reactions), in the black market, tax implications (least of the issues but it's real), the general idea that if we do this with most laws everyone is breaking some law at some point, there's blackmail and corruption that can result, etc.

What we may discover as a society is that if we allow certain freedoms to take their course, we may adjust favorably to them over time. It's definitely a complicated problem because it involves society, pros/cons on both sides, and is really hard to scientifically analyze.
 

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
My support for the legalization of prostitution is premised on the fact that prostitution is real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Because it is a real, immovable, pervasive part of society, it ought to be legalized so that it can be regulated in order to reduce the damage that it does to prostitutes, their clients and society, at large. Sadistic billionaires who pay people for their eyes are not a real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Therefore, I see no benefit to making the actions you describe legal.
That's a decent point. A bit defeatist for my taste though. I think, given the problems we know these women go through, we're at least obligated to try to help.
 

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No on children. Conditional on mentally impaired, if it's self impairment or outside their control matters IMO. The issue in all such cases is we pay a price as a society in making it illegal (see prohibition type reactions), in the black market, tax implications (least of the issues but it's real), the general idea that if we do this with most laws everyone is breaking some law at some point, there's blackmail and corruption that can result, etc.

What we may discover as a society is that if we allow certain freedoms to take their course, we may adjust favorably to them over time. It's definitely a complicated problem because it involves society, pros/cons on both sides, and is really hard to scientifically analyze.
What would cause such problems to self-correct? It's human nature, for some more than others, to objectify others. Ever see Clockwork Orange?
 

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No to these two only, considering both of these people are not mentally fit and therefore cannot be held liable to a binding contract.
But it's fine to take advantage of anyone else purely for sadistic pleasure? Sorry, but that makes me sick.

This is why I can't support libertarians.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What liberty do they really have, if they're so desperate for money that they would sell their gift of sight?
Is it not their right to sell their sight if they see it fit to survive? I would say it is, but I would also say it's extremely stupid and there is better ways to get ahead. I think allowing people more choices even if those choices are poor is a good thing.
 
Top Bottom