In this thread, I posed the following question: Which is more wrong; Killing someone for money, or doing it for free?
You don’t know the person, you have never met them. Someone asks you to kill them Is it more reprehensible to kill them for profit, or pro bono?
I can’t decide which I find more displeasing; Killing for free would imply that you were doing it for pleasure, while killing for money would imply you did it out of greed…
I think it would be more reprehensible to kill for profit.
If there is money involved, it becomes a cold-blooded murder. With no money, one could attempt to rationalize the offense by claiming that there were no selfish motives. Also, if someone requests the kill and can convince you as to why Mr.X has to die, then one could use that point to further justify the delusional moral high ground that it was a necessary evil and that it was not motivated by greed.
No, the killing is not justified to you in any way: the one who asks you to kill the person tells you nothing about why; simply says “Kill this person for me and I’ll pay you if you want.” You are free to take the money for the killing or not, which is worse?
Your set-up is kind of vague, so this is a hard one to answer. IMHO, killing strictly for money is real bad–real, real bad.
Now, killing just for the sake of killing is bad-real, real bad.
But, say for instance, your girlfriend tells you that her evil, mean step-father has been raping her since she was 10, and will kill her if she tells anyone. She goes on to tell you that if you wait outside her bedroom window tonight, you can catch him attempting the act at 10:30P.M. (He waits until the news is over)
You look in the window, see what he is doing, and blow him away, no fee, no charge, no foul. I would not feel bad during or after the fact, in a situation such as that. Sorry it is a little wordy!
I hate questions like this. The way the terms are set up it makes people look like chumps no matter what the answer is.
Given the choice, I’d take the money. I wouldn’t get caught, so not having a way out (no moral high ground) after the fact doesn’t bother me 
It was not my intention to make anyone look like a chump. I simply couldn’t decide, so I thought it would be nice to hear the arguements for both sides (if possible) before making up my mind.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I think the killing is the bad part. Whether or not there’s cash involved is inconsequential.