morality test

[BlaqueKatt]

ok I have great arguments with this one with people that think due to religion they are morally superior to me.(if you have an issue with the person I've chosen feel free to replace with Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao-Tse Tung**-anyone who is directly involved with a mass genocide{Bush is not an option-he's killing his own soldiers mainly})


You have a chance to go back in time-to Germany in 1902. You have the opportunity to stop the holocaust before it happens by killing(without a weapon) an (at the time) innocent child by the name of Adolf Hitler. There will be no worries of arrest or detainment or getting caught. Do you do it? Can you morally justify killing an innocent person to save 14 million.

I cannot, even though many of my ancestors died because of him, I would not be able to kill someone based on something they haven't done yet, even if it was "for the greater good"-morally I could not do it. Killing another human that is not a direct threat to myself or someone else is not an option.

Most people who claim greater morality than I have by virtue of religion would have no issue with killing an innocent child "for the greater good"-because of all the lives "they" would have saved by killing one innocent. And since this is hypothetical.....could history be worse if he had not come to power? I can think of at least two reason why it could've been.

Reason one:
Hitler was not a good military strategist, they could have found someone much better.

Reason two:
Hitler having himself been a victim of mustard gas in WWI* was hesitant to use chemical weapons in battle(he didn't consider the Jewish, Roma, Polish, and disabled to be human or in his words "life unworthy of life"), would a different person have felt this way?


So there you go-could you kill an innocent to potentially save millions? Explain your choice morally without using religion to back it up.


*October 15th 1918-he was temporarily blinded during a mustard gas attack though there is question as to if it was the gas or a hysterical blindness.

**I greatly encourage anyone to do some minimal research on all murderous dictators due to the fact that if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. I believe that by reading and somewhat understanding, as much as possible, we may be able to prevent something lie this from happening again. By understanding the actions we may be able to use them as warning signs and prevent things from getting out of hand next time.

[Pedersen]

I'll sidestep the question entirely, since I don't know my own answer as yet, and ask a supplementary question:

Since you have the power to go back in time to before the first world war, why wouldn't you work to change the state of the world such that neither of the wars occurs, thereby saving all those same lives by preventing the wars from occurring in the first place?

[Slytovhand]

Yeah - that's part of the thinking I had when I read it, Pedersen...do you know that if you go back to that time, that there is nothing else that could be done to change history, other than by killing?

I presume, for the sake of the argument, the answer is 'not really'? Although, if that were true, then the 2 options BK gave for not doing it, wouldn't happen...

So, if someone else worse could come up instead, then also in theory, you have the opportunity to change Hitler's (or whomever you decide fits the bill) personality or world views.

Also - there's a fair bit of 'prior knowledge' involved in the scenario...

I like what you often see in Sci-fi series, where they do the parallel universe thread. 'Hey - my universe is about to get wiped, why should I save yours?'. If you 'go back in time', and things can change, then all you're doing is changing timelines... which means - in that timeline, Hitler may not be the atrocious bastard he turned into...


But, to answer the question for me.. yep - I should be able to do it (whether I would or not is a different story). I don't need religion to grant a sense of morality to it, but I do use my beliefs for why I'd be willing to... I believe in reincarnation, so the death of 1 creature isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

I'll sidestep the question entirely<grr>

Since you have the power to go back in time to before the first world war, why wouldn't you work to change the state of the world such that neither of the wars occurs, thereby saving all those same lives by preventing the wars from occurring in the first place?

I knew this would come up and technically that's cheating-so I'll qualify it further:
Because you only have 10 minutes in the past. Plus as I said you don't have to use Hitler-how would preventing WWI change what Stalin, Lenin, or Pol Pot did?

[Zyanya]

ok I have great arguments with this one with people that think due to religion they are morally superior to me.(if you have an issue with the person I've chosen feel free to replace with Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao-Tse Tung**-anyone who is directly involved with a mass genocide{Bush is not an option-he's killing his own soldiers mainly})

I have to use a little bit of religion to answer the question, and I'll use the Christian one because it's the one I am most familiar with.

The only way to prevent the actions of those people is to go back in time and kill a gardener named Adam.

[AFPheonix]

Adam wasn't a Christian, though.

[crazylegs]

To be brutally honest Killing Hitler wouldn't have stopped WWII, Germany was in such a dire position that any number of people could, in theory, have come to power who might have done a similar thing, it would be more beneficial to look at the treaty of Versailles to prevent the humiliation of a nation to stop that war.

[Zyanya]

Adam wasn't a Christian, though.

:::checks her bible:::

Sure looks like he is a figure in the Christian mythos.

[the_std]

Zyanya, so was Jesus. But he was a Jew. Hm.

[tyr]

I wouldn't mess with the past, doing something like killing Hitler could have some major unforeseen consequences that could be far worse then anything that happened in world war 2. Not saying that it wasn't really horrible but i cant think of one movie or book that had time travel that didn't go wrong in some way. But then again i am a pessimist.

[CancelMyService]

Also, to further stir the pot, if Hitler had never came to power, you wouldn't have had people like Albert Einstein coming to America to flee the Nazis. That probably would have changed a LOT of things right there.

[tyr]

Also plastic, fake rubber for tires and super glue to name a few things that were invented during the war. Necessity is the mother of all invention

[Boozy]

I hate "what if" history questions, and that's not really what BK was asking us.

The answers to "what if" questions fall into the realm of fantasy; it's impossible to know how things would be different, because our minds don't know and can't process the literally trillions of variables that would be involved.

But I think BlaqueKatt's scenario presents a good question. How about rephrasing it? How about asking, "There is a child right now, in the present, whom for whatever reason you KNOW will grow up to be the next Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin. Do you kill him or her?"

[Slytovhand]

... and presuming that the only way to prevent such a thing is to kill him or her...

(otherwise you get where Pedersen was going....)

[AFPheonix]

:::checks her bible:::

Sure looks like he is a figure in the Christian mythos.

He's a figure in many of the mythologies of religions that arose in the Fertile Crescent. Unfortunately, since he predated Christ and more importantly, the followers who came up with Christianity as a religion, he was not a Christian.

[crazylegs]

But I think BlaqueKatt's scenario presents a good question. How about rephrasing it? How about asking, "There is a child right now, in the present, whom for whatever reason you KNOW will grow up to be the next Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin. Do you kill him or her?"

No.

These people filled a void, if you kill them another will fill it instead with similar consequences.

[Slytovhand]

No.

These people filled a void, if you kill them another will fill it instead with similar consequences.

Given that... therefore, Ghandhi and ML King et al were just...'pawns to history' - people to fill a void..

Yes?

It also seems to imply a 'nature' personality, versus 'nurture', as well - would you agree with that? Because it seems to imply that people wouldn't have changed if they were influenced by someone else.

[crazylegs]

Given that... therefore, Ghandhi and ML King et al were just...'pawns to history' - people to fill a void..

Yes?


Yes, someone had to step up to highlight a struggle, it was those men who did so, even if those men were killed before they had made an impact another would have stepped up to highlight the issue.

[Slytovhand]

Fairy Floss...

I understand where you're coming from in regards to tensions in society for voids to be filled, but what about in general? Would someone have stepped into GW's shoes if he wasn't around? And then done pretty much the same sort of thing? (after all, if we can pick on people like Hitler, Pol Pot etc, surely there would be some Iraqis who might name GW as a major protagonist...)


Slyt

[Greenday]

Anyone here ever play the game Command & Conquer: Red Alert? Excellent example of why I wouldn't.

For those who haven't played the game, a time-machine is built and someone goes back in time and gets rid of Hitler. As a result, a massive war between USA and USSR begins. Great...

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Yes. But the question is really would I kill myself to save 14 million from the Holocaust.

Because I'd have to kill myself after.

I'm serious. Your question actually caused me to get a horrible icy chill and I felt my stress level spike. I'm THAT averse to harm to a child. I'm not sure if I could make myself, even knowing what I know. I'd probably have to drown us both or jump from a height at the same time or something.

God, what a horrible question. But no, it's a good one, very thought provoking.

So yeah. I'd have to do it to save 14 milliion people. But I'd not live after it. I would not be able to live with the horror that I'd killed a child.

[AFPheonix]

It seems like that time would be better spent scaring the crap out of the leaders who decided Germany's punishment after WWI, thereby saving a lot of poor Germans heartache as well as saving everyone else from having to fight in and suffer the consequences of WWII.
Russia would probably be a whole different place today, as would China and Japan.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I just realized I only answered part of the question.

Yes, someone else could have done worse But someone else didn't. Hitler did. And it doesn't matter if you MIGHT create a future where you remove Hitler and make things worse, because by killing the kid you change the odds regardless.

Option 1: Kill Hitler.
You've changed your odds to include a chance that the Holocaust wouldn't happen ever. You give tens of millions of people a chance to live.

Option 2: Don't kill Hitler
Your odds for the Holocaust happening stay the same...100 percent chance of it happening. Millions of people die without a chance.

Taking out one kid you know beyond a shadow of a doubt will grow up to be one of the world's greatest evils is worth that. Because say there IS a greater power for evil than Hitler. Leave Hitler alive, and now you have two of them. Besides, he might have been crummy at tactics, but he had something more powerful...charisma. You can do far more damage with charisma than you can with a gun. If you have charisma, you have a gun. You have everything you need.

[Zyanya]

He's a figure in many of the mythologies of religions that arose in the Fertile Crescent. Unfortunately, since he predated Christ and more importantly, the followers who came up with Christianity as a religion, he was not a Christian.

Still looks like he was the first man in Christian mythology. If you are just going to do this silly nitpicking, don't bother responding to my posts, cause this is the last time I'll respond to this nonsense.

Zyanya, so was Jesus. But he was a Jew. Hm.

Way to miss the point entirely.

That being - any other evil dude can be replaced. The only way to prevent humanity from doing evil things is to prevent humanity from existing.

[MystyGlyttyr]

I couldn't. Not as a child. As a grown man, yes, I think I could kill Hitler, easily, and just hope for the best in the future. But children are, by their nature, innocent. It's a rare exception that a child raised in a loving environment with any degree of decent morality will still turn into an evil, murderous bastard...and those exceptions can't necessarily help themselves, as the problem is something within themself they can't control.

I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me, but I do believe there exists Bad People, who are just inherently evil and nothing that is ever done could have changed them.

But most people, I think are more or less victims of circumstance and weak constitution. You have to work hard to overcome a painful, horrible upbringing or life event, and a lot of people just aren't equipped for it, and make the choice to just give in to the darkness. Some...and I myself am most likely in this group...are lucky enough to be saved at the last minute by someone loving and perfect who comes along at just the right time to help a person pull themself out of the void. But most people have to make the choice to fight nurture on their own, and won't do it.

All that being said, I don't think Hitler was a Bad Person. I think had his circumstances been different, he could have grown up to become a great leader and a voice for wonderful things. He had the potential to be one of the greatest assets the world had ever seen. It just didn't come together for him that way, and he didn't make the choice to try and overcome it.

I can't raise my hand to an innocent child, no matter what the outcome could be. It's a weakness I won't choose to overcome.

[Boozy]

All that being said, I don't think Hitler was a Bad Person. I think had his circumstances been different, he could have grown up to become a great leader and a voice for wonderful things.

I've read several biographies about Hitler, and I disagree.

He showed pretty typical sociopathic tendencies as a child. When fighting in World War I, he was despised by his fellow soldiers for being too "gleeful" about all the killing. He wrote that WWI was the "best time of his life".

If Hitler was not a "Bad Person", then who is?

[Greenday]

I could have sworn that Hitler was only a messenger during WWI.

[crazylegs]

I could have sworn that Hitler was only a messenger during WWI.

He topped out at the rank of Corporal, received the Iron Cross and was gassed (hence why he never used it during WWII), even if he was just a messenger in WWI everyone fought when they needed to.

[MystyGlyttyr]

He showed pretty typical sociopathic tendencies as a child.

So did I. Hell, I still do. I tortured animals, burnt bugs, froze mice in the freezer, etc. The thing was that until my mom caught me at it, NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS WRONG. Most of the animals didn't make any noise to let me know they were in pain. Being Aspie, I didn't automatically realize how to sympathize with other creatures. I had to have it actually explained to me that doing certain things hurt other living things. Once my behavior was caught and corrected, I stopped doing it. But if tomorrow, I killed someone for any reason, armchair psychiatrists would pop out from everywhere to point to these previous behaviors as evidence that I'm something that, honestly, I know I'm not.

I haven't studied any of the newer bios or anything to come out about Hitler, so I never read anything regarding his habits in war. But to be perfectly honest, I would be in my element in a war zone. I tried to enlist several times but was turned down for essentially bullshit medical reasons. I wouldn't necessarily be "gleeful" about killing, but it's not necessarily something I would stress over too much. And hell, a war might BE the best part of my life, because I would feel as though I were doing something important, something to serve my country and my people, rather than just sitting on my ass in an office fighting petty little battles with cranky soccer moms.

To some other people, the fact that I could kill in certain situations without too much thought would be another evidence of my being a sociopath. But I'm NOT. I don't think a sociopath would cry when she accidently hit a cat with her car, or get upset because she had a friend who was dumped, etc. I have feelings. They're just not the same as everyone else's.

I'm trying not to be too sensitive and I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, because I don't want to do that. But I've had too many people try to paint me with the wrong brush based on only one side of my story. Maybe that makes me more...I don't know, sympathetic to Hitler. Don't get me wrong...I don't defend his actions. I'm not saying what he did wasn't atrociously evil and I'm certainly not saying he wouldn't deserve to die for it, because they were and he did. I just don't think he was inherently bad. Just misled, maligned, and ultimately weak.

And, to me, taking that child, who still had the potential, and killing them outright, just wouldn't be right. Damn me to hell for it, but I couldn't choose to hurt a child who wasn't an immediate threat in some way.

As for who I personally think of as inherently bad, I wouldn't be able to tell you without sparking off an entire nother raging debate. But they're alive and well in this day and age and the thought of them terrifies me to no end.

[BlaqueKatt]

Once my behavior was caught and corrected, I stopped doing it.

And according to this article (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html)

"There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of conduct disorder. "

It can be prevented, but not treated, go hug your mom for doing that.......

[DesignFox]

It can be prevented, but not treated, go hug your mom for doing that.......

From what I've read of Hitler, he didn't exactly come from a loving and stable home environment...

How do we know that he couldn't have turned out differently?

Mysty is saying that things might be different had her mother not nurtured her...

What if Hitler's parents had nurtured him? What if his father hadn't been an abusive SOB?

I'm with the crowd that couldn't kill a child. Regardless of the outcome, I couldn't harm an innocent child. Especially because the child wouldn't have any idea why they were being sacrificed. It smacks too much of that story Mysty posted awhile back...

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, I have to say I based my answers on the idea that I would know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Hitler would grow up to be who he grew up to be, and would beyond a shadow of a doubt architect the Holocaust.

If it was presented to me as history might be changed by changing him, then of course I wouldn't kill him. Because by telling me he might change, you've given 14 million people a chance. And that's would be all I would be trying to buy.

[Pedersen]

Finally posting my real answer to the question.

I like to believe that I would kill him. I like to believe that I'm that heartless that I could kill without guilt. After all, we're talking about someone who managed to architect such horrendous atrocities that he even has his own "internet law" (Godwin's law, anyone?). How can anybody say anything other than yes, I'd kill him if I had the chance, since I know he would do that?

The reason being that I cannot know the consequences of that action. I could, through killing him, set the stage for some biological plague to hit the world by the end of 1940's, wiping out even larger swaths of the population than he did. I have no way of knowing this for sure. Furthermore, there would be no reset button. By killing him, I change the future so that what he did never happened. No one would know how to fix the secondary problems I created.

So, how about the amended question? I have absolute proof that a specific child will grow up to commit atrocities that would make Hitler himself blanch, and on at least the same scale that Hitler's atrocities occurred. Would I kill that child?

I would. I'd be affecting the course of the future, even still. However, I'd only be affecting the future. I wouldn't be altering things that have already occurred.

Going back in time and changing the past is a recipe for disaster on a global scale. Changing the unknown future? Well, I'm already doing that, just by experiencing it. I'd just be acting to prevent something from happening that, otherwise, will happen.

However, that proof would have to be absolute. Not even a millionth of a millionth of a percent of doubt could exist before I would do so. And there would have to be no possible alternatives to pursue. Despite how I sound here and in other threads, I'm not some deathmonger. I'm not going to kill for pleasure.

But I will do it if no other possible choice exists.

[Slytovhand]

Mysty... I'd be interested in your other thread you mentioned...:D

Secondly... ok, the 'issue' here seems to be about killing an 'innocent' child (as some have specifically said).

So... how about killing his father 2 days before conception was due to occur? Would that change anyone's answer?

Or... how about going back and killing someone like Bismark, who gave Hitler a few ideas on how to run things? Or Neville Chamberlain (PM of England in 1937 - let Hitler get away with invading Czechoslovakia)... for waiting and waiting and waiting, instead of having another PM who would have the balls to move against Hitler in the first place?

Or.. or... or.... Things change - we'll never know how much.....

[Seshat]

I think I could kill Hitler, but given a choice of ways to prevent World War II/the Holocaust, I think I'd probably prefer to save the life of ArchDuke Ferdinand, and thus (potentially) prevent World War I.

Which would (potentially) prevent Germany being so badly affected by the result of World War I that some sort of violent result was all but inevitable. Therefore Hitler wouldn't have the following he did. Of course, that would leave the conditions that triggered WWI in place; just remove the specific incident that fired it off.

Another option, of course, would be to inject Hitler's mom with depo-provera a little bit before he was due to be conceived. But that wouldn't correct the tensions that led to WWII.

[Boozy]

But Seshat, you're getting into the "What if?" thing again.

It is impossible to know what could have happened. Could be better, could be worse. The variables are so many that they are virtually infinite.

I know I've already said this, but this sort of thing drives me absolutely nuts. It's such a pointless endeavor.

[Sylvia727]

I find the OP ambiguous. Is it asking, "would you, in an absolutely controlled controlled situation, take the life of one innocent to save the lives of fourteen million more?" Or is it asking "does child Hitler's future guilt somehow justify his present (child) execution?"

If it is scenario A, then I hope I could. I hope I would be strong enough to be the heartless bastard who looks at the numbers and makes a cold decision for the greater good. I'm not sure I could look at myself in a mirror, after; actually considering the reality of murdering a child, I'm not sure I could live after that, not with all the therapy in the world. But I hope I would be strong enough to sacrifice my mental and spiritual health for the lives of those fourteen million.

If it is scenario B, then absolutely not. I don't care if it's a closed time loop, absolutely irrefutably inevitable. I would not execute anyone, much less a child, for crimes they have not committed.

[Boozy]

I don't understand why your answers would be different.

In the first scenario, you would kill an innocent to save others. In the second, you would refuse to kill an innocent to save others. What am I missing here?

[Sylvia727]

I separated the "saving people" part from the "guilt" part. Because motivation is a huge difference. I wouldn't kill somone because he'll deserve it later, but I would to save fourteen million lives.

[Pedersen]

(Just to play a bit of devil's advocate)

One flaw, Sylvia: You're going back in time. He actually has killed those fourteen million people. He's done it already. It's not something that might happen. He's killed those people.

And, if what science is learning about the nature of time turns out to be correct, he always will kill fourteen million people.

You see, as I understand it, time branches at every moment, literally creating another universe. In the universe we come from, Adolf Hitler was a maniacal sociopath who killed way too many people. You going back in time will not change your time line. In fact, it cannot change it, or else you would have no reason to go back in time and kill him.

No, you would change an infinity of other timelines instead. And, in an infinite number of those timelines, you would have saved fourteen million people, though the people in those timelines would view you as a heartless monster who murdered an innocent child in cold blood since, for them, World War II hasn't happened yet. You've changed the future for them. And left your own past intact.

So, the only thing you'd be changing is his method of death. Execution versus suicide. And even then, no one from your own timeline would ever know.

Ain't time travel fun? :D

[Boozy]

And, if what science is learning about the nature of time turns out to be correct, he always will kill fourteen million people....
You see, as I understand it, time branches at every moment, literally creating another universe.

The vast majority of physicists do not ascribe to that idea because it is entirely untestable, and therefore falls outside the realm of science. Scientists treat this concept as a nifty thought only.

If there's a solution to the "Schrodinger's cat" problem, our best bet will be finding it mathematically. Multiverses can't be proven or disproven to exist mathematically because, by their nature, they do not interact with our reality.

Additionally, there is strong evidence that the mathematics of probability makes multiverses extremely unlikely.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Slytovhand]

<snip>... because it is entirely untestable, and therefore falls outside the realm of science. Scientists treat this concept as a nifty thought only.

.... Multiverses can't be proven or disproven to exist mathematically because, by their nature, they do not interact with our reality.

Additionally, there is strong evidence that the mathematics of probability makes multiverses extremely unlikely.


Ummm - I need evidence of this, cos a) I'm seriously not convinced it's not testable at all, and b) there's also very strong mathematical thought that almost 'proves' multiple universes.

Sounds like we find ourselves different bits of information...
(not that all this has masses to do with morality, although I can see a case for it... but then, I can see a case for saying Hitler would probably be dead now anyway, regardless of whether he was a child alive 100 years ago or not - so what's it really matter?)


Slyt

[Boozy]

Ummm - I need evidence of this, cos a) I'm seriously not convinced it's not testable at all, and b) there's also very strong mathematical thought that almost 'proves' multiple universes.

How can you "almost" prove something mathematically? Math is black and white; you can either provide proofs or you can't.

Edit: I wonder if we're discussing two different things here. There are currently two concepts in science about multiverses: One has been accepted as a valid theory in the study of cosmology, and is referring to the origins of the universe and the Big Bang. That's solid science.

From what Pedersen posted, I think he was referring to the multiverse idea (in particle physics) that states that every possible thing that can happen does happen. It's interesting to think about, but there's never going to be evidence of it. If I'm wrong about what you were referring to, Pedersen, I apologize.

[Slytovhand]

Well - I mean while you can provide 'proofs', it doesn't necessarily mean it will tally up with the way the universe/s choose to be - that's all.

[Pedersen]

How can you "almost" prove something mathematically? Math is black and white; you can either provide proofs or you can't.

Actually, there is quite a range of problems which are almost proven, but not just yet. That it is to say that the leading mathematicians believe we have the problem more than 90% solved, but are still missing that last little bit that will provide the remainder of the proof. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP_problem

I think you'd agree that saying we are close to doing something means we have almost done it, and that would mean there are a number of things which are almost proven mathematically.

From what Pedersen posted, I think he was referring to the multiverse idea (in particle physics) that states that every possible thing that can happen does happen. It's interesting to think about, but there's never going to be evidence of it. If I'm wrong about what you were referring to, Pedersen, I apologize.

Actually, that is what I was referring to. I even attempted to do some research to prove things one way or the other, but wasn't able to get anywhere in either direction.

As to whether or not there will ever be evidence of it? Consider the following absolute truths from the past 1000 years, and what has been found since then.

The world is flat. There is no such thing as a living organism smaller than the eye can see. The speed of light is a constant. It is impossible for a rocket to work outside of the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth is the center of all existence.

Right now, we may be unable to devise a method to test for the existence of other universes, so the whole branching space-time theory is merely conjectural. That does not preclude some one being able to figure it out in the future, though. After all, if it does exist (and I'm not saying it does or does not), then there will, someday, be a way to find it.

All of which is a far cry from the thread, so I'll try to redirect here:

Sylvia727: If you were able to go back in time to kill Hitler before World War II, then, from your perspective, he would already be guilty of the killings. You wouldn't be killing him before the war. You would be killing him as either justice or punishment for his actions in the war.

Furthermore, nothing you could do would actually be able to prevent the massive slaughter in World War Two. After all, if you could prevent it, you would create a paradox (i.e.: You go back in time to kill him before he massacres so many, resulting in your never needing to go back in time, resulting in him massacring so many, resulting in your going back in time, etc). Either the branching space-time theory would hold, or something would prevent your killing him.

In either case, you would be either punishing him, or bringing justice to him, for crimes he has already committed. You couldn't kill him before he had committed them, only after. And that rather nullifies your argument about killing before he committed the massacres.

[Sylvia727]

You're right that I could only kill him "after" he committed the murders. Although I think the OP takes the stance that time is fluid, since killing Hitler is assumed to protect the Holocaust victims. From my point of view, killing child-Hitler would be justice/punishment for the Holocaust, but from child-Hitler's, I'm just a psycho murderer.

However, I would be killing child-Hitler to prevent the Holocaust, not to punish him. At that point in time, he would be an innocent, and his murder would be no less reprehensible than any of his future murders.

[protege]

Another option, of course, would be to inject Hitler's mom with depo-provera a little bit before he was due to be conceived. But that wouldn't correct the tensions that led to WWII.


Exactly. The conditions leading up to WWII--Germany's defeat in WWI, the subsequent inflation and economic meltdown, plus the eventual build-up in their military were already in motion at that point. Throw in the loss of territory (the Rhineland), and things got worse. The German people were pissed, and someone (anyone) was going to pay for it.

That someone was the Jews. They were a convenient target, mainly because they came through the 1920s and '30s relatively easily. From what I understand, they didn't get hit as hard as the average non-Jewish German citizen. As a result, it was very easy for Hitler to blame them, and (eventually) rise to power.

Even if Hitler was killed before then, the conditions were already there...that someone could easily have taken his place, and committed far worse atrocities. Suppose that someone was a better general and didn't make the same mistakes--i.e., attacking the Soviets. (At the time, they were on the same side, until Hitler's surprise attack in '41) They could have easily taken over the rest of Europe...

[Slytovhand]

This might all be true regarding WWII... and a little bit earlier, but if we're going to talk about going back in time to do something, why stop at a mere 100 years or so?

What if we choose to pick someone else...Nero or Caligula for example? We're in the early stages of 'what might have happened if Hitler were bumped off early', but, in the long run, we'll never really know about that difference (cos we're unlikely to be here). So... given the last couple of thousand years, would someone bump off Caligula as a kid to prevent all that came after that? And thus, change all the time in between....

[crazylegs]

Seeing as we're all getting caught up in the 'what if' history scenario let me put it this way.

Present day. The future has yet to be written and actions now will change events in the future. You receive information that child X will commit atrocities in their later life in circumstances unique to them causing immense pain and suffering to thousands. If you kill them now these atrocities will not occur.

Now how do you guys stand?

[Slytovhand]

Good call Crazy... I was sort of thinking that as well - but went backwards instead...

Well - I'd have to find out how damn reliable that information was... and also why oh why execution or murder were the only viable options.

[Gabrielle Proctor]

No. I wouldn't do it. I am of the opinion that if the holocaust didn't happen, some kind of major genocide would have happened anyway. Just because you stopped one, doesn't mean that you would be able to stop them all.

[Flyndaran]

No. I wouldn't do it. I am of the opinion that if the holocaust didn't happen, some kind of major genocide would have happened anyway. Just because you stopped one, doesn't mean that you would be able to stop them all.

Ha. That is the biggest copout I've ever read.
I shouldn't stop the U.S. government from torturing people, because other governments would torture someone else.
Not to mention highly offensive. If you had to the power to save A. Aaronson and Z. Zelazny, but chose not to, how is that different from simply stepping over a bleeding unconscious man and not calling for help?

I wouldn't kill a baby, but I would kidnap him and place him somewhere he might get treatment for his eventual mental illnesses.

[Slytovhand]

I wouldn't kill a baby, but I would kidnap him and place him somewhere he might get treatment for his eventual mental illnesses.

Hmmm... I'm seeing an issue right there!!!

Apart from presuming a 'mental illness' is at work, rather than just a personality (though distorted from what we consider 'normal'...)

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The movie "The Final Countdown" and an episode of "The Twilight Zone" both covered it. In TFC, the USS Nimitz went back in time before Pearl Harbor and found out that their actions did nothing to stop the disaster, but were part of the events (the famous picture of battleship row was taken from one of the E3 Hawkeyes, etc)

And the Twilight Zone Episode brought up the question. What if by your actions you actually were the one responsible for the way history turned out? An episode of the 2002 Twilight Zone entitled "Cradle of Darkness" features a time traveller (Katherine Heigl) going back in time to kill Hitler as an infant. The time traveller kidnaps the Hitler baby and leaps from a bridge, killing herself and the baby. A horrified housekeeper, who had witnessed the murder of the baby Hitler, does not tell Hitler's parents but rather bribes a homeless woman to sell her baby. The baby is then returned to the Hitler household where he takes the place of the murdered infant, growing up to become the Hitler that the world knew.

So say someone kills the baby, comes forward in time and finds out that nothing has changed. What if new DNA evidence came out that proved that Adolph Hitler wasn't related to his parents and was adopted? How would the person who went back in time feel knowing that not only didn't he prevent the tragedy, but caused it instead?

So I'm content to let the past be the past. If I had access to a time machine, I would like to witness certain events, but I could never bring myself to change them.

M