Would You Kill Hitler in 1930? A Moral Dilemma

[VikingF]

that's pretty clever. Too bad analogies don't prove anything.

My opinion stays the same.

 

[scott1]

Very Hard dicision.I whould choose not to shoot him and shoot someone elese importent in the Nazi party so what Hitler did whouldn't as bad without changing histroy to much.

 

[emrandel]

Alright, there's two situations that spring from this initial situation.

Hypothetical Situation #1: You have never existed in the current time and you are (ex.) a german citizen in the year 1930 and you knew what WOULD happen, the reaction would naturally be to eradicate him since he's a threat to your well being (or not, depending on your political status which couldn't be predicted today except for in certain specific circumstances)

Hypothetical Situation #2: You are currently residing in the present (2005) and (generally) regardless of your political status you would look back and consider killing him. Yet, in this situation would be playing with time and that should never be done because there are more variables than any human (and any computer I know of) could ever calculate.

So to summarize, in situation #1 99.9% of humans that are morally conscious would say: YES. While in situation #2 99.9% of anyone who isn't a complete dumb ass would chose: NO.

Lesson: Don't **** with time; it bites back.

 

[daveb]

As a person who tries to follow the categorical imperative of Kantian morality, I would never do it (I say try - no one can at all times follow Kantian morality). Sure I would consider it, but that's as far as it goes. By the same token, I wouldn't stop another person from doing it.

 

[vanesch]

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?

You can of course ask the question how you could change history and nevertheless know it. How can you know what Hitler "did/will do in the 30-45" when you are going to change it ? Hell, maybe you're even at *the origin* of Hitler's behaviour. Maybe Hitler (the one that was elected in 1930) wasn't such a bad guy, but you killed him, and the Nazi's replaced him by a sozie ? Or maybe you tried to kill him, you failed, and that got Hitler paranoia ?
Or maybe there are parallel time lines in which in one line, we have Hitler the way we know him, and in another line, you kill Hitler.
But one thing is sure: you cannot KNOW in 1930 what you know of what happened in 2005, if you have the ability to change it.
So OR you can know it, and that means you cannot change it, OR you cannot know it (because you can change it and then it will of course not happen, hence it will be unknowable), OR both happen in any case in parallel worlds. But you cannot "know" something that will not happen. You can maybe THINK you know it, but then you're just deluded.

The other question is: imagine that you could eliminate Hitler. The question is: where would we be today ? Would the world in 2005 be better or worse off without Hitler ?
Maybe not having had Hitler would not have pushed the US to devellop an atomic weapon, and maybe Stalin did devellop it, after which he launched a total thermonuclear war ?

 

[emrandel]

You can of course ask the question how you could change history and nevertheless know it. How can you know what Hitler "did/will do in the 30-45" when you are going to change it ? Hell, maybe you're even at *the origin* of Hitler's behaviour. Maybe Hitler (the one that was elected in 1930) wasn't such a bad guy, but you killed him, and the Nazi's replaced him by a sozie ? Or maybe you tried to kill him, you failed, and that got Hitler paranoia ?
Or maybe there are parallel time lines in which in one line, we have Hitler the way we know him, and in another line, you kill Hitler.
But one thing is sure: you cannot KNOW in 1930 what you know of what happened in 2005, if you have the ability to change it.
So OR you can know it, and that means you cannot change it, OR you cannot know it (because you can change it and then it will of course not happen, hence it will be unknowable), OR both happen in any case in parallel worlds. But you cannot "know" something that will not happen. You can maybe THINK you know it, but then you're just deluded.
The other question is: imagine that you could eliminate Hitler. The question is: where would we be today ? Would the world in 2005 be better or worse off without Hitler ?
Maybe not having had Hitler would not have pushed the US to devellop an atomic weapon, and maybe Stalin did devellop it, after which he launched a total thermonuclear war ?

When one walks blind-folded he/she tends to lean towards one side, or the other. Therefore, if given enough time (5 pages) the subject will exhaust his/her/its range and begin a circular cycle. All apparent possibilities have been touched and thoroughly repeated, I wonder if anyone has any UNIQUE ideas or can offer a deeper analysis.

 

[Serene_Chaos]

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.

lol you sound like you're from back to the future or something, but i agree, killing hitler then could seriously screw things up.

 

[Wishbone]

are you serious? what are the chances someone worse than hitler would arise? don't you think that its a 1x10^-10000 chance that something worse than the holocaust and WWII would happen? don't you think that most likley the future would be better than the HOLOCAUST?! And for those who said oh well Einstein wouldn't be famous, or we wouldn't have the technology that we have today should be kicked in the face.

 

[Serene_Chaos]

you're jewish, arent you wishbone.:tongue:

 

[Francis M]

For what you hypthetically want to have happen (i.e. shoot Hitler-change future-prevent Holocaust) you'd have to assassinate the entire upper echelon of the Nazi party. Killing just Hitler wouldn't prevent anything. Any one of Hitlers henchmen at the time would've stepped right into his place to continue the Nazi Parties plans because that's what they all believed in. Besides that, the Brown Shirts that were working with/parallel to Hitlers Nazi Party at the time were just as brutal. So again anyone from that party could've stepped right up and continued things right along the same track or worse.

The problem/question ends up being: can anyone garruntee the future of Europe and the world would be better if anyone of the numerous other political parties in Germany won out in the 30's, when we can't even definitivly say the future would be changed at all except that possibly Adolf Hitler wouldn't be the main name associated with the Holocaust?

I think emrandel hit the nail on the head, There are too many variables here to consider.

Please don't take the above as a rant and an excuse to start arguing with me, it's just a humble opinion.