So, here's a thought I had while playing a video game and realising 'these values for taking out this person/group of people seems awfully low, do they just have low disregard for human life?'. Now, this is what got me wondering, putting you in the position of characters given money to take out others, what's the lowest amount you'd accept to clip someone? (You don't get to ask why, what they did or who they are beyond a picture of them and location. The reason is this is a question of general value would you put human life, not 'people I feel morally deserve death'.)

Is this from a real life perspective? If so, are we discussing breaking the law on a PG 13 forum?

If it's from a game perspective, then I usually just go around killing everyone.. even from an RP perspective. It is after all, a game. Although on some characters I'll only accept a contract if the price is right. But we don't have dollars in either my country or in the games I play lol.

The question isn't really 'who would you kill'. It's a question of whether someone has a 'breaking point' and would kill for money. It's a philisophic question, not a thread for giggles. Pay attention. I post threads like these on 'moral issues' to try and produce interesting discussions. In this case interesting discussions on the morality of taking money for human life vs whether money is truly worth the life of another human being.

Other: 500.000 Sunset Sarsaparilla Star Bottlecaps.

EDIT: Seriously, it would depend on the individual.

It'd depend on the person really.

I wouldn't kill a genuinely sound person no matter what I was offered, but it wouldn't take much to get me to go after some truly awful people.

I am paying attention, and I honestly don't like the thought of the forum discussing how much they would accept to kill another human being.

You're missing the point, it's a question of ethics. Could someone ever accept money? Besides, it's asking if they were put in the role of the character, not IRL, though real world perimeters obviously would apply (Kill off a character and they're gone for good from that world) and so on.

Oh well, the forum is.

I personally couldn't do it to a normal person, even if I didn't like them no matter the price.

If it was some ruthless dictator that committed genocide and such then I would do it for about 100,000.

Probably no less than $100,000, but everything is negotiable. Besides being difficult on a moral level, taking someone's life is a task that comes with many risks to my personal security, and I want to be compensated accordingly.

No amount of money is worth not being able to live with what I'd done, so that, I guess.

Depends on their level.

No amount, there are even lesser crimes I would not do for any amount. Some things just don't have a price.

Somewhere between $1 and $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Oh I think some people would definitely accept money to kill another, many people have no ethics or morals, or simply don't care.

It's on the individual primarily I think, the killer I mean, not the victim (although the victim undoubtedly plays some role in this).

I don't know. I can't say. Soldiers from all sides get paid little to kill. Assassins get paid much more. Some people are worth less and some more. I guess it all comes down to being a market. I would like to say there is no price, but I'm not sure I couldn't assign a value to it. Whether it is monetary or some other value it's hard to say.

I don't think there's any amount of money you could pay me, but there could be situations or even things of value that are needed that mere money can't buy. Even then this would be a highly unusual situation within a string of already extremely unusual situations to get me to consider it.

Money means very little to me and Vometia summed it up perfectly:

The same as non-human animal life. High. I see both as equal in worth and worthy of existing. So, yes, all of your lives have the same value to me as the life of a tree frog sticking to my face. Only, if a human was sticking to my face, I'd be able to ask said human to kindly unstick themselves. The frog is innocent in this situation as it probably didn't mean to bother me with its frog butt in my face.

So, I'll just put priceless. And no, there isn't a frog stuck to my face right now.

Personally, I'd consider this more of an interesting discussion, but this is coming from someone who ponders pretty much everything. Besides, humans are a violent species and as a violent species, professions that ask for payment after a violent deed is finished or a death is made are only natural occurrences. We don't really do the whole peace loving thing very well... In fact, bonobos do the whole being peaceful thing far better than us and they are considered hilarious when you find out about how they greet one another. There is still killing in Bonobo society, but it certainly isn't to the extent of humans and chimpanzees.

Strangely, the most violent species are often the most intelligent... This is more of an observation that only has observation to give than something that can be factually made true. Chimpanzees have wars with one another, for example.

Depends on the person. Life itself is not measured equally, but that's how life is. No ones going to place worth on a broken, defective product.

That's something I find so interesting. It makes you (or me) wonder how 5,000 people can say killing is wrong, but then there's a few who go 'How much?'. In some ways, I wonder if apathy is learned or something you're born with.

You can't really compare a soldier and an assassin. With a soldier, you're generally there to protect and support your country and all that comes with said supporting while the latter is motivated by greed. I just find it interesting how there are so many answers of ethics and morality to the topic, which is ultimately why I wanted to talk about this because I find the array of ethical and moral views across those asked a question to be fascinating and find it a stimulating discussion to discuss varying views. For example, it's funny how most people seem to say, 'I wouldn't take money for it....well, maybe if they were a child molester or murderer.'. It's interesting how when you strip away the concept of humanity, a person says no, but you start putting positive or negative personality identifiers on the proposed target and the answer usually becomes more 'No way' the more 'good' you apply and less sure of their firm answer the more you apply 'bad' to them. I wonder if this is a sort of instinctive justification of their greed with 'Well, this person IS (insert negative image), so it's not THAT bad.'

It's not about the money..

the value of a life depends on how much and what kind of personal damage is averted by the other persons death.

If someone comes up to my farm at night with intent to harm -they die, after which I'll call the authorities and claim self defense at my trial.

Same for when I was still overseas. If someone posed a threat -or looked like they posed a threat.. I didn't take any chances. Because to hesitate in the wrong situation is to lose a team member. And that's unacceptable.

To me it's less about how much of a value do I place on someone who might need to die as apposed to the value I place on those who depend on my protection.

It has nothing to do with the person or the sum. It's not my place to decide how long someone lives.