Would you shoot Hitler?

  • Thread starter Smurf
  • Start date
310
2
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

Gold Member
4,854
14
Smurf said:
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.
 
270
0
Even if you could interact with Hitler, There is no guarentee 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
:smile:
 
310
2
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
911
0
coffee na lang dear said:
I might give him the benefit of the doubt that he will not commit his crimes
What crimes did Hitler commit?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,968
5,130
Smurf said:
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

Gold Member
4,854
14
Smurf said:
If you do not stop evil, you are partly responsible for it, are you not?
Exactly!

*punch in the face*
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
hitssquad said:
What crimes did Hitler commit?
How bout "he will not commit his mass murdering spree"
 
310
2
russ_watters said:
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

Gold Member
4,854
14
Well the hell if he would deserve it before his time but i'll be damned if i wont take him out
 
788
0
Pengwuino said:
Well I have no idea what you're talking about. All im 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

Gold Member
4,854
14
Jameson said:
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.
 
270
0
Smurf said:
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.
 
310
2
remind me to add a *Paradoxes aside* disclaimer next time.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Smurf said:
remind me to add a *Paradoxes aside* disclaimer next time.
See, ya can't ask these people questions without all this bs :P
 
788
0
I'm going to quote the original post to remind everyone of what it was.

Smurf said:
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

Mentor
18,968
5,130
Smurf said:
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...
Jameson said:
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".
 
310
2
russ_watters said:
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 in to 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.
 
hitssquad said:
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.
 
788
0
russ_watters said:
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.
 
208
0
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.
 
310
2
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

Gold Member
4,854
14
I'd shoot hitler just because you pansies refuse to.

Nothing like a good spite killing.
 
270
0
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

Gold Member
4,854
14
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.
 

Related Threads for: Would you shoot Hitler?

Replies
170
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
63K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
19K
Replies
7
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Top