Would You Kill Hitler in 1930? A Moral Dilemma

[Smurf]

Scenario: You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now. Hitler and his Nazi's have just been elected into power in Germany.

Hypothetical: You find yourself in some situation in which you have the ability the shoot and kill Hitler. It is 1930 he has as of yet, committed no crime. Would you kill an innocent man? Or let Hitler go?

 

[coffee na lang dear]

Scenario: You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now. Hitler and his Nazi's have just been elected into power in Germany.
Hypothetical: You find yourself in some situation in which you have the ability the shoot and kill Hitler. It is 1930 he has as of yet, committed no crime. Would you kill an innocent man? Or let Hitler go?

YES - since I hate him because of what he has done (specially if you hypothetically assume that I am a Jew) and as what history has taught us what to believe.

YES - since I am a lawful citizen and FACTS points out that Hitler's crimes began as early as 1921 and therefore based on these facts I now have the reason to shoot and kill him. These are some of Hitler's crime before Hitler became the leader of the Nazi Party, in the General Election that took place in September 14, 1930.

- He was found guilty and sentenced to the death penalty for the Beer Hall Putsch (9th November 1923) leading a mob crime that killed 21 people and wounding hunreds. But was released after 1 year on 20th December, 1924, after serving just over a year of his sentence due to some 'favorable' turn of events.

- In September 1921, Hitler was sent to prison for three months for being part of a mob who beat up a rival politician.

NO - since I am a reasonable man and I might give him the benefit of the doubt that he will not commit his crimes (as you hypothetically mentioned that he is still innocent at that time).

NO - Hitler left Europe and the rest of the world devastated and with it a warning for the future. His regime had illustrated the dangers of nationalism, the obscenity of racism and the importance of democracy.

It was a very expensive and bitter lesson, but it did provide us the very valuable meaning of life and humanity.

 

[Smurf]

So which is it? Would you or wouldn't you?


-I intentionally left out the beer hall putsch since he was punished for that, and released according to the rule of law in Germany at the time. I didn't know about the assault case, but I still think it should be ignored since it is certainly not deserving of death.

I want to focus on the ethical and moral implications of killing someone because of what you know they will do, but have not yet done.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would not shoot him. His impact on history was vast and, therefore, killing him could result in an even worse situation arising. It seems impossible, but you can never be do careful when altering the past.

 

[Lisa!]

Scenario: You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now. Hitler and his Nazi's have just been elected into power in Germany.
Hypothetical: You find yourself in some situation in which you have the ability the shoot and kill Hitler. It is 1930 he has as of yet, committed no crime. Would you kill an innocent man? Or let Hitler go?

No, because I don't want to kill anyone on my birthday!
Anyway, what you're saying doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't want to be 1 of those people who always get stuck on details and doesn't realize you're talking about an hypothetical situation for discussing morals or whatever like that, but you know what you're saying has some logical problem.
You know what he's going to do in the future, so you kill him and for sure he wouldn't be able to do his crimes. But hey how on the Earth can you claim you know what's going to happen in the future, when those crimes wouldn't happen?
We have the same problem for traveling to the past. If you were able to travel to the past and then you killed 1 of your grandfather (before your father would be born), we'd get into trouble here (no because of not having you here now ) How come can you born when your father couldn't be born?
God! I myself don't know what the hell I'm talking about!

 

[cefarix]

No, the world needed Hitler at the time. Otherwise who knows where we'd be now.

 

[Mike Altieri]

No. He may have done some horrible things, but World War II made for some amazing advancements and was necessary for humanity in many ways.

 

[Smurf]

No, the world needed Hitler at the time. Otherwise who knows where we'd be now.

Is evil necessary to prevent evil?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Are they saying better the devil you know than the one you don't know?

I dunno, I think I'd shoot him. Doesn't seem like things could be worse off than if you let him go through with it. Then again, I'm an idiot

 

[Jameson]

Would I shoot Hitler? Yes, I think I would. But is that really the right thing to do? The issue is so complex that I don't know if killing him would stop the horrible things that occurred during WWII. I think that Germany was in a perfect state to be led by anyone who was willing to point the blame for their current state on anyone else. And there were other countries in the Axis Powers. So, to just kill Hitler based on the reason that it would benefit the world is not an irrational statement, but I certainly don't think one can prove that it would completely change the way history occured. There are just too many variables to comprehend.

 

[Pengwuino]

I was going to post something like this a few days ago but i figured everyone would start throwing in BS technicalities no matter how well defined i made the situation.

 

[Jameson]

What are the BS technicalities that you're referring to?

 

[z-component]

No, I would not shoot Hitler because there is no way of telling how the world would be today. I have no guarantee that something worse wouldn't happen instead of Hitler's reign or something directly caused by his death.

For example, if Hitler hadn't started WWII and researched nuclear weapons, Einstein would not have come to the US when he did, and for all we know he wouldn't have been as useful as he was. Modern physics might be lacking!

Just a hypothetical thing... :)

 

[z-component]

I was going to post something like this a few days ago but i figured everyone would start throwing in BS technicalities no matter how well defined i made the situation.

You should have... I think these are somewhat fun.

 

[Intuitive]

Scenario: You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now. Hitler and his Nazi's have just been elected into power in Germany.
Hypothetical: You find yourself in some situation in which you have the ability the shoot and kill Hitler. It is 1930 he has as of yet, committed no crime. Would you kill an innocent man? Or let Hitler go?

If Hitler had not comitted the events he did then there would be no reason to kill him, It's a paradox, He must commit to the event to the point that it is recordable as such in history.

Other than that, It becomes a designer parallel Universe time line and does not change the Original time line you came from, When you traveled back to your original time line then you'd find nothing changed unless you went through changed time in the normal flow of time in the Universe you thought you had changed, then you can live in your designer Universe unchanged, But once you leave the designer time line it will revert back to normal recorded history by shifting you back to your original parallel Universe.

It's the only way around the paradox barrier that I know of using the designer Universe theory.

 

[Pengwuino]

What are the BS technicalities that you're referring to?

Oh people will say something stupid like "But you'd never be absolutely sure history would have the outcome you say it will" after saying over and over "Let's just ASSUME that history will turn out *such and such way*". And you'll say it over and over and over and people will still say "but... what if you're wrong!" and you just want to beat them with a hammer while yelling "ITS ONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU MAKE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, IT IS RIGHT, IT IS NEVER WRONG, THATS WHY ITS AN ASSUMPTION" because I have asked things like this before.

So actually its not technicalities, its people who are so insecure about their personal opinions being monopolized that they can't think about a different situation even if for the sake of an unrelated argument.

 

[Jameson]

Alright. Sounds like you are pretty passionate about this. I said something similar to what you professed to hate, but not to say that this whoele thread is pointless. I'm only saying that to kill Hitler on the assumption that it would completely change the outcome of history is something I coudn't say is true. But I think I would kill Hitler because of my hate of what he did.

 

[NoName013]

No, because:
1. Wars speed up the advancement of technology
2. There are many interesting WW2 movies
3. I have not been personally affected by him except in positive ways (#s 1 and 2), therefore I am should be grateful he did what he did.
4. Actually, if it wasn't for Hitler, Poland would not have been occupied by the Soviet Union (would it have been eventually?). If this had not happened, my parents would not have met and I would not have been born.
5. Right now, we live in a relatively peacful time. I feel that it was Hitler who caused this peace by the reaction against war and dictatorship that he inspired.

In summary, there are many reasons to be grateful that Hitler came to power. If you were to examine your lives, I'm sure you could find a reason to light a candle for him on his birthday. Actually, I feel sorry for him. All he wanted to do was to shape the world into the way he wanted it. True he was crazy, but aren't we all. Anyways, its not like the people he caused the deaths of would not have died eventually. I couldn't kill a man that never did anything wrong to me personally. However, if someone stole my car and I knew I could get my car back by killing him and not get caught, I would. Ω

 

[Intuitive]

Alright. Sounds like you are pretty passionate about this. I said something similar to what you professed to hate, but not to say that this whoele thread is pointless. I'm only saying that to kill Hitler on the assumption that it would completely change the outcome of history is something I coudn't say is true. But I think I would kill Hitler because of my hate of what he did.

Paradox says: You can not change your original Hilters History.

NOTE: Any event with a Paradox creates a designer Universe. Catch 22: You can not leave it if you wish it to remain as your new time event line.

If you keep Hitler from killing all those people you will have to stay in that designer Universe for the changes to take place.

It is also possible that once you jump to a designer parallel time line you will never find your way back to what was your (original) Universe as you once knew it, You'd be lost in parallel designer Universes.

Hope this helps.

 

[James R]

Problem is, there's no guarantee that if somebody had killed Hitler, somebody equally bad wouldn't have stepped up to take his place. For example, Himmler wasn't a very nice guy, either.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd write a book, outlining every major historical event that Hitler would become responsible for, then I'd go back. If history's actors, knowing the sequence of events that would occur, did not stop him themselves, they would have no one but themselves to blame.

 

[Smurf]

4. Actually, if it wasn't for Hitler, Poland would not have been occupied by the Soviet Union (would it have been eventually?). If this had not happened, my parents would not have met and I would not have been born.

haha. If you go back in time and kill hitler, do you cease to exist?

 

[Pengwuino]

Alright. Sounds like you are pretty passionate about this. I said something similar to what you professed to hate, but not to say that this whoele thread is pointless. I'm only saying that to kill Hitler on the assumption that it would completely change the outcome of history is something I coudn't say is true. But I think I would kill Hitler because of my hate of what he did.

Well I have no idea what you're talking about. All I am passonate about is how stupid people get when you ask them a simple question and they decide to start throwing in their own crap to ruin the argument all together. Nothing to do with the current argument at all.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So nobody wants to take the gamble and shoot him? I wonder what percent of Holocaust victims would say yes. Seems we're pretty removed from the situation today.

 

[Pengwuino]

It seems like people these days are so far removed from actual death and destruction that no one is capable of even thinking about suffering hte indignity of killing a human even if its the save (or even allow the possibility of saving) tens of millions of people.

 

[Smurf]

No one's even tried talking about the actual moral implications of punishing someone for something he hasn't done yet, but you know he will...

 

[Pengwuino]

No one's even tried talking about the actual moral implications of punishing someone for something he hasn't done yet, but you know he will...

Well what are the moral implications of letting a man go who will be the root cause of the death of tens of millions of people.

 

[Intuitive]

Even if you could interact with Hitler, There is no guarantee you would succeed in killing him, Hitler and his men may kill you and you'd become a part of the masses that died. Even if you did know where and what he did at specific times, the Historical data would not have enough (details) to assure your success. Then all the unkown factors will work against your plot. R.I.P

 

[Smurf]

Well what are the moral implications of letting a man go who will be the root cause of the death of tens of millions of people.

If you do not stop evil, you are partly responsible for it, are you not?

 

[hitssquad]

I might give him the benefit of the doubt that he will not commit his crimes

What crimes did Hitler commit?

 

[russ_watters]

Scenario: You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now. Hitler and his Nazi's have just been elected into power in Germany.
Hypothetical: You find yourself in some situation in which you have the ability the shoot and kill Hitler. It is 1930 he has as of yet, committed no crime. Would you kill an innocent man? Or let Hitler go?

Interesting question.

Paradoxes aside, from my point of view, history has already happened, so Hitler has already committed those crimes. So going back in time to kill him would be acceptable.

However, if I were to go back in time and give a German a history book, it would be wrong for that person to kill Hitler.

If you do not stop evil, you are partly responsible for it, are you not?

I think so, but I'm surprised to hear the suggestion from you.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you do not stop evil, you are partly responsible for it, are you not?

Exactly!

*punch in the face*

 

[Pengwuino]

What crimes did Hitler commit?

How bout "he will not commit his mass murdering spree"

 

[Smurf]

Interesting question.
Paradoxes aside, from my point of view, history has already happened, so Hitler has already committed those crimes. So going back in time to kill him would be acceptable.
However, if I were to go back in time and give a German a history book, it would be wrong for that person to kill Hitler.

Okay, so here's a new scenario: If you saw into the future and saw person X commit a horrible crime, would you be justified in punishing him for that in your own time?

(interesting that no one has objected to whether or not Hitler deserved the death penalty)

I think so, but I'm surprised to hear the suggestion from you.

heh. Really? why?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well the hell if he would deserve it before his time but i'll be damned if i won't take him out

 

[Jameson]

Well I have no idea what you're talking about. All I am passonate about is how stupid people get when you ask them a simple question and they decide to start throwing in their own crap to ruin the argument all together. Nothing to do with the current argument at all.

I just noted that from your posts your language reveals you being upset. Forgive me, but I really haven't seen you justify your position, but merely say other people's are "stupid" and things of that nature. Could you please establish your position and explain why you feel that way?

 

[Pengwuino]

I just noted that from your posts your language reveals you being upset. Forgive me, but I really haven't seen you justify your position, but merely say other people's are "stupid" and things of that nature. Could you please establish your position and explain why you feel that way?

I don't have a position.

I was merely stating how I would have made a topic like this except I would have expected stupid people to come in and try to throw technicalities into the question so that they wouldn't have to directly answer the question which pisses me off. This is why I didn't make a thread like this.

 

[Intuitive]

If you do not stop evil, you are partly responsible for it, are you not?

But you can't stop your original Hitler from doing what he did, that's the catch. you can not change your original time line other than what's recorded.

To many unknowns. You would have to have very good E.S.P to figure out the remaining details.

 

[Smurf]

remind me to add a *Paradoxes aside* disclaimer next time.

 

[Pengwuino]

remind me to add a *Paradoxes aside* disclaimer next time.

See, you can't ask these people questions without all this bs :P

 

[Jameson]

I'm going to quote the original post to remind everyone of what it was.

Scenario: You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now. Hitler and his Nazi's have just been elected into power in Germany.

Hypothetical: You find yourself in some situation in which you have the ability the shoot and kill Hitler. It is 1930 he has as of yet, committed no crime. Would you kill an innocent man? Or let Hitler go?

The question was, "Would you shoot Hitler?". Was this merely looking for a yes or no answer or did you want some kind of justification? I already said that I would shoot Hitler, but I think to justify it would be hard.

Your general situation is: When something X causes an event Y that is deemed to be horrible, would you kill/destroy X? I really think this is a complex issue, but people have deemed it to be simple. So removing the "BS", what would you like people to answer?

I could see how this situation ties into topics like "Is it ok to kill one person to save a million?" or "Which is more moral? Killing 49% of the population or 51%?".

Jameson

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, so here's a new scenario: If you saw into the future and saw person X commit a horrible crime, would you be justified in punishing him for that in your own time?

Have you seen the movie "Minority Report"? That is precisely the premise it is based on.

"...saw into the future..." is a little vague, but assuming you mean some sort of vision, no, that is not enough to judge guilt. The reason is that a vision does not necessarily imply an unambiguous, predetermined timeline.

heh. Really? why?

Aren't you the one who argued precisely that in the Politics forum about a week ago? That we shouldn't intervene unless invited by both sides? Perhaps that's a discussion for the thread on international law and human rights...

The question was, "Would you shoot Hitler?". Was this merely looking for a yes or no answer or did you want some kind of justification? I already said that I would shoot Hitler, but I think to justify it would be hard.

This is the philosophy forum: the "why" is much more important than the "what".

 

[Smurf]

Aren't you the one who argued precisely that in the Politics forum about a week ago? That we shouldn't intervene unless invited by both sides? Perhaps that's a discussion for the thread on international law and human rights...

Well you should only be intervening as peacekeepers. Going into invade one side will only cause more violence in the long run. And if both sides arn't willing to be peacefull, you trying to be peacekeepers isn't going to work, and probably end up causing more violence as you yourselves become a target. So yeah, only get involved when invited by both sides to be peacekeepers.

 

[coffee na lang dear]

What crimes did Hitler commit?

"he would leap laughing into the grave because the feeling that he had five million people on his conscience would be for him a source of extraordinary satisfaction." -- Eichmann once said about Hitler to a fellow Nazi

None. If you are talking about human laws on murders and crimes and with so many brilliant defense lawyers we have right now, Hitler's lawyers MIGHT plead on the grounds of insanity and he would be in a mental asylum and will be a free man if he ever be completely sane again.

But we already have history behind us, they have already called these CRIMES. The act can be committed by either a SANE or an INSANE mind.

 

[Jameson]

This is the philosophy forum: the "why" is much more important than the "what".

My sentiments exactly, which is why I was making a point that all of the complexities of the issue aren't "BS" in my opinion.

 

[quasi426]

Since I have not had the direct impact of Hitler's evil, murder and brutalitiy I would argue that I would not kill him in 1930, or whatever the date is, since he has not committed anything wrong. By direct impact I mean something to the effect of having my childern killed by him or something like that. However, moral questions get dealt with a little different when one has felt the wrath and wrong doings of someone else, such as Hitler.

 

[Smurf]

If you believe in Free Will, then you shouldn't kill him, I'd think. Because from any point you go back to he still has the choice of whether or not to make those decisions, he might change his mind.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'd shoot hitler just because you pansies refuse to.

Nothing like a good spite killing.

 

[Intuitive]

If this world had perfect humans then there would of been no Hitler.

But this somehow gets compared to something Hitler would say.

No Crazies, No Luneys, No Problems, Just Utopia type Humans.

This would be controlling Genetics, But we can't have that, Right?

My opinion, I would love Utopia type Humans.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ya know... compare this to my poll a while ago about killing an innocent child to cure the world's diseases and you come up with some rather strange paradoxes. Humans seem completely unwilling to kill a child even if it means disease will run rampant throughout the world forever and millions will die beacuse of various diseases YET we seem to be willing to let Hitler live for simple ideals like "well he's not guilty yet" or "technology will advance because of hitler" even if it means the deaths of tens of millions of people.