Originally Posted by
BlakNWyte
Take for instance a criminal. Pick any one you want- a burglar, murderer, rapist. It doesn't just have to be a puppy crusher- just people who are less than desirable to our society. Now your logic would suggest that by terminating these people we would make life better for the community.
But where does your logic stop? A puppy killer is detrimental to the community, yes, but so are elderly, retired people. So are disabled/mentally unfit adults. They don't give our society anything yet they consume and profit from a lot of our resources. After all:
Oh no.
First of all, the massive grief that would ensue if we were to kill all elderly and disabled would create a far bigger problem than their lack of productivity. Second of all, they do contribute, but their contribution is emotional. On top of that, elderly people often occupy a very important role of another parent figure, occasionally guiding and counseling younger members of the family.
In conclusion, it wouldn't make sense to get rid of them even from purely utilitarian perspective.
Neither do i want to kill
every criminal, because not all of them are completely lost. Some people commit crimes out of desperation, when they have nothing to eat. It's a case by case thing.
And in this case, i can't find even remotely satisfactory justification for their actions. Were they starving and wanted to eat the puppy? No. Did it threaten them? No. After making this thread i actually did a little research on the matter, and guess what? I was right about them being a threat after all.
Take a look:
An excerpt from the study of the link between animal cruelty and homicide
Article linking animal abusers to pathological killers
Another article. Press ">" button to view different cases
Last edited by Odlov; Nov 1, 2009 at 03:09 AM.