you win the interwebbs!
Did none of you watch Avengers: Endgame or what? Going back in time doesn't change the present so even if you killed him, the events would have still taken place when you came back.
https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-time-travel-explained/
https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-time-travel-explained/
Having morals to start with is indeed requisite.
Same as you, cousin.
Morals, sure, but that does not immediately make murder immoral.
For example, if one supports the death penalty (for whatever reason) then they condone the idea that there are times when taking a life is justified. The only reason we don't call it murder is because we've decided that 'a fair trial' removes the immorality of it. Now, in this thread the person in question is Hitler, whose crimes against humanity are not in question. So, since we can't execute him after the fact, we are asked to consider killing him as a child (thus saving millions perhaps). In this scenario we already know his crimes and guilt, but are left to ponder whether 10 year old hitler is 'innocent' or not.
All that to say that it's not hard to find examples where we think that murdering another person is morally justified. The biggest difference is that we usually call it something else to justify it to ourselves. And i'm not assigning right or wrong here, just pointing out that the act of killing another person (especially under the guise of saving others) is common. The real questions here is more about the innocence of youth and the 'can things be different' via some other option.
Last edited:
Taking a life does not necessarily = murder
murder
noun
mur·der | \ ˈmər-dər\
Definition of murder
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (emph. mine)
American Heritage Dictionary goes a little farther...
The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
I do agree with you about the "real question". As presented, most take the dilemma to be about whether or not Hitler should be killed before he has a chance to commit his atrocities. But I think (partly from reading the responses) that the real struggle most have is with whether or not we can be absolutely 100% sure that history will play the way it did if he is not killed. Most of the reservations I see are along the line of what if it doesn't, but the question itself defines that it absolutely and certainly will. Given that, I think I probably could, and while it leaves open the interesting possibility that something worse COULD happen... those hypothetical events are potential, not inevitable (within the question). The question does not leave the possibility that it might happen differently if young Adolf is allowed to live. In other words, I would prevent the inevitable, and take my chances on the potential.
To put it a different way, if you were convinced that a 17 year old young man was about to kill your family (or make it a 10 year old if you'd rather), could you take his life? I think most of us would say, absolutely! The difference is that the threat to your family is immediate and certain, while the question leaves the impression that Hitler's threat is certain, but not immediate. But the question as stated does not allow uncertainty. It only allows a difference in how much time passes before the inevitable takes place.
At least, that's how I see it....
murder
noun
mur·der | \ ˈmər-dər\
Definition of murder
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (emph. mine)
American Heritage Dictionary goes a little farther...
The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
I do agree with you about the "real question". As presented, most take the dilemma to be about whether or not Hitler should be killed before he has a chance to commit his atrocities. But I think (partly from reading the responses) that the real struggle most have is with whether or not we can be absolutely 100% sure that history will play the way it did if he is not killed. Most of the reservations I see are along the line of what if it doesn't, but the question itself defines that it absolutely and certainly will. Given that, I think I probably could, and while it leaves open the interesting possibility that something worse COULD happen... those hypothetical events are potential, not inevitable (within the question). The question does not leave the possibility that it might happen differently if young Adolf is allowed to live. In other words, I would prevent the inevitable, and take my chances on the potential.
To put it a different way, if you were convinced that a 17 year old young man was about to kill your family (or make it a 10 year old if you'd rather), could you take his life? I think most of us would say, absolutely! The difference is that the threat to your family is immediate and certain, while the question leaves the impression that Hitler's threat is certain, but not immediate. But the question as stated does not allow uncertainty. It only allows a difference in how much time passes before the inevitable takes place.
At least, that's how I see it....
How convincing is this kid?
Strictly speaking to answer the initial question; Yes. In a heartbeat.
Enough to convince you that if you don't act, you'll be planning funerals. I'll leave it to you to define that point.
Similar threads
