Paying a homeless person to eat dog poop - Page 5

OtisTheMarsupial · #41 06-16-2005, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While it is distasteful and I would have a low opinion of anybody who did such a thing - is anybody really arguing that? - I'm still not sold that it is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really not understand that eating dog poop is hazardous to your health? It's filled with bacteria... Have you hear of e coli?

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

Damn straight it's immoral.

jakethebake · #42 06-16-2005, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have to say that it is immoral. If you have the choice between doing a homeless person a favor and giving him $100 OR you wanted him to perform a disgusting stunt for the money, how could you possibly classify the guy demanding a stunt as a moral person? Getting some sort of amusement (or monetary reward, by selling the video tapes) out of watching a dude (homelss or otherwise) eat [censored] is pretty messed up, and demanding that the bum would eat it before you'd give him the cash clearly is the sign of a piece of [censored] individual. So I'll have to call this immoral. Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely agree except that being a piece of [censored] individual doesn't make you immoral. I'm not agreeing it's a nice thing to do, or that the person that would seek this form of entertainment isn't pretty [censored] up. However, I don't believe it's immoral.

cbfair · #43 06-16-2005, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the politics forum someone mentioned that the guy who made Supersize This used to pay homeless people $100 to eat dog poop and videotape it. Do you think that this is immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personaly, I'd say its immoral; But so is slander... Regardless of anyone's opinions of Supersize Me, has it been substantiated that Morgan Spurlock actually did this?

DMBFan23 · #44 06-16-2005, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do I think anyone that would do this is pretty [censored] up? Yes. But is it immoral? Not in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to assume, but are you confusing immoral and illegal?

swede123 · #45 06-16-2005, 01:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes. $100 represents so much to a homeless person, that he/she is forced to endure this pain because of what the $100 brings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no moral obligation to see through his eyes. I don't want to see through his eyes. I also have no moral obligation to give him anything. Do I give to charity? Yes. Do I think anyone that would do this is pretty [censored] up? Yes. But is it immoral? Not in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jake man. It's the difference between giving the money freely and demanding something in return (whether it be amusement or monetary gain) that makes this an immoral act.

Here are the applicable definitions of moral:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him. A good, moral person who intended on giving someone $100 would do it with no strings attached or at least in return for something that wasn't so clearly demeaning or humiliating.

Swede

gumpzilla · #46 06-16-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably the person your paying knows this as well. They are agreeing to it. Again, it's a legitimate point to debate whether the need for $100 makes it so this isn't truly voluntary, but few people are taking that tack.

Here's a similarly structured argument: Being a fireman is dangerous. Paying people to fight fires is like paying people to risk serious bodily harm. Damn straight it's immoral.

gumpzilla · #47 06-16-2005, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is saying this guy is good or virtuous?

And, I'll pose this question again. Which is more immoral: to give a bum $100 if he'll willingly eat dog poop, or to pass the bum on the street, give him nothing, and go spend $100 on a nice meal for you and your lady friend?

swede123 · #48 06-16-2005, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is saying this guy is good or virtuous?

And, I'll pose this question again. Which is more immoral: to give a bum $100 if he'll willingly eat dog poop, or to pass the bum on the street, give him nothing, and go spend $100 on a nice meal for you and your lady friend?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the person who demanded a bum eat some dog crap in exchange for $100 is less moral than someone who just goes on their way and spends the $100 on something else.

Obviously a person who gave $100 with no strings attached would be more moral (in my eyes) than someone who ended up spending it on something extravagant for himself.

Swede

jakethebake · #49 06-16-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jake man. It's the difference between giving the money freely and demanding something in return (whether it be amusement or monetary gain) that makes this an immoral act.

Here are the applicable definitions of moral:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Clearly it is not the sign of a good or virtuous person to demand that a fellow person do something disgusting before offering his help to him. A good, moral person who intended on giving someone $100 would do it with no strings attached or at least in return for something that wasn't so clearly demeaning or humiliating. Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. His purpose here isn't to give the guy $100. This person obviously wants to see them guy eat poop. The $100 is his. He has a right to use it for whatever he wants. When I go to the store, I don't think I'd really like to give this guy $5.60 and it would be wrong to ask for a sixer in exchange. Yes, I agree he's a raving sicko. But I don't think he's performing an act that's morally wrong. If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

spamuell · #50 06-16-2005, 02:37 PM

If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

Jake, this is the issue that people who say it's immoral have, that while the bum may have the right to refuse to do the act, he does not have the choice because he needs the $100 so much.

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.

I think what's immoral is that society allows someone to be in that situation in the first place, once people have the freedom to eat, have shelter and have relative safety from being beaten up, offers like this cease to be immoral because choice actually exists.