Would You Kill Hitler in 1930? A Moral Dilemma

  • Thread starter Smurf
  • Start date
In summary, if given the opportunity to shoot and kill Hitler in 1930 before he committed any of his infamous crimes, the opinions are divided. Some would do it based on their hatred towards him and knowledge of his future actions, while others would not because of moral and ethical implications and the uncertainty of how history would have been altered. Some believe that Hitler's rise to power was necessary for certain advancements and events to occur, while others argue that it was not worth the devastation and loss of life. Ultimately, the decision to kill him or not would be a difficult and complex one, with no clear answer.
  • #36
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
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.
 
  • #39
remind me to add a *Paradoxes aside* disclaimer next time.
 
  • #40
Smurf said:
remind me to add a *Paradoxes aside* disclaimer next time.

See, you can't ask these people questions without all this bs :P
 
  • #41
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
 
  • #42
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".
 
  • #43
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 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.
 
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
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.
 
  • #48
I'd shoot hitler just because you pansies refuse to.

Nothing like a good spite killing.
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
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.
 
  • #51
I would kill someone if they were an immediate threat to myself or another innocent person.

Since Hitler at that time had not committed any crimes against humanity, I would look for other means to stop him before I would take an innocent life. If it were possible to stop the holocaust and alter history by shooting Hitler, perhaps dosing him with LSD would be just as effective.:wink: :cool:
 
  • #52
Pengwuino said:
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.
It's the focus on individual rights, as opposed to utilitarianism, which seems to be what you're advocating.
 
  • #53
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?
It is of course an impossible scenario. One could not "be in 1930" and also have "all the knowledge of history you have now", and still have the ability to change that same history? It is logically impossible.

But taking it as a thought experiment - YES, good grief YES, I would kill Hitler! How can any right minded person not do so?

MF
 
  • #54
No, I wouldn't kill him. Not immediately. I would torture him slowly, then make him choke to death on the same gases he killed 6 million people with. 6 Million people. Yeah theoretically, someone else could step up and do worse if I killed him, but I couldn't sleep at night knowing that I could have prevented millions of people from dying. Whether those millions are the jews, the allied forces, or the German forces, millions died for a twisted mans dream.
 
  • #55
TKolb325 said:
No, I wouldn't kill him. Not immediately. I would torture him slowly, then make him choke to death on the same gases he killed 6 million people with.
but he didn't. :rolleyes:
 
  • #56
Pengwuino said:
we seem to be willing to let Hitler live for simple ideals like "well he's not guilty yet"
It is not a case of "he's not guilty yet". The original question was "would you kill Hitler if you know what you know now?".

"What I know now" is that Hitler IS guilty - the fact that he has yet to commit his crimes does not make him any less guilty. The simple fact is that he WILL commit these crimes (no doubt about it) - therefore he IS guilty.

Whether the punishment precedes or succeeds the crime is irrelevant in such a case.

MF
 
  • #57
i don't think you gave us enough information. are you assuming that we know about Hitler and his genocide? Are you assuming that we are in the present, or we are in the time when Hitler was on the news? Need more info!:smile:
 
  • #58
thetadecay8421 said:
i don't think you gave us enough information. are you assuming that we know about Hitler and his genocide? Are you assuming that we are in the present, or we are in the time when Hitler was on the news? Need more info!:smile:
The original post quite clearly says

"You are in 1930, Spetember 15th with all the knowledge of history you have now."

What more do you need to know?

MF
 
  • #59
moving finger said:
"What I know now" is that Hitler IS guilty - the fact that he has yet to commit his crimes does not make him any less guilty. The simple fact is that he WILL commit these crimes (no doubt about it) - therefore he IS guilty.
That's assuming a deterministic world. Like I said earlier, if you believe in Freewill then he hasn't committed his crimes yet, and he might choose not to.

(i don't like this response since it implies relativism)
 
  • #60
Smurf said:
That's assuming a deterministic world. Like I said earlier, if you believe in Freewill then he hasn't committed his crimes yet, and he might choose not to.
The question at the beginning of the thread asked me to assume that I know what I know now - which is that Hitler indeed committed the crimes, not that Hitler MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT commit the crimes.

I'm not assuming anything, except the assumptions forced on me in the thought experiment itself.

If you wish to ask a different question, such as "would you kill Hitler if you THOUGHT that he MIGHT commit the crimes?", then that is a different question.

MF
 
  • #61
Assuming the idea behind the question is whether I would kill to prevent evil, then yes, I'd kill Hitler. Assumign he hasn't commited any crimes, you still know he will. By not killing him you allow all the evil he will commit to be done. Whether or not he has the freewill to choose not to, you KNOW he won't. His choice will be commit murder, rape, torture, etc. On one hand I can let him live and kill those other people, or I can kill him and save them. Let's see, should I kill one man, or a couple million?:rolleyes:
If your spouse was about to be shot and you had the ability to kill the would-be murderer, you would. Freewill be damned, you know what he is about to do and you'd do anything to stop it.
 
  • #62
moving finger said:
If you wish to ask a different question, such as "would you kill Hitler if you THOUGHT that he MIGHT commit the crimes?", then that is a different question.
Well answer that bloody question then.
 
  • #63
In a rational sense it would be wrong. If I did not know but only thought what he would do, then it would be wrong. However, this is different then asking if I would. If I thought that there was no reasonable doubt of his evil, even if there was no proof and certinty, I probably would kill him. I know it isn't "moraly right", but that is something I am willing to live with.
 
  • #64
i personally wouldn't kill him at all...i would lock him away in some sort of prison and take all the paper he could ever write on away...i definitely wouldn't kill him if i knew he would kill tons of ppl yet hasn't yet done it or attempted it. but if i knew he would do soemting liket hat, i'd be sure to surround him wiht individuals who wuld arrest him and jail him at any moment he ordered it. of course tiem travel isn't yet possible.

cd
 
  • #65
No need to kill him, just cut out his tongue, and he would lose his status as an alpha male in his society group. Of course, you must then serve some time in jail. Just make sure you do not eat the tongue, then you may end up in mental hospital.
 
  • #66
If I did or did not kill him is immaterial. All actions and reactions are predestined.
 
  • #67
I think ole Hitler deserves a trip to Camp X-ray, courtesy of Uncle Sam and a time travel machine who wishes to remain anonymous.
 
  • #68
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?


Yes, because I have the ability to "see into the future" (since I'm really from 2005, which is "the future" in 1930), and the ability to change the wrong direction the world is going towards, so that this crazy person will not do what he is about to do.

It is almost like the question: "You are in a car. The car is driving. In front of you in the road you see a big animal. Would you stop, even if you know you haven't crashed yet?"
The answer "must" (sorry for my arrogance! :biggrin: ) be: "Of course! You KNOW that you will die otherwise, and have the ability to do something about it."
 
  • #69
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?
No i would not shoot him, because this entire notion of "preemptive strike" does not work.

(Recent) History has taught us that.

Besides we would not have had the Volkswagen, Porsche,...Einstein would not have been this famous and the US would not have been the only remaining super power left in 2005.

regards
marlon
 
  • #70
VikingF said:
It is almost like the question: "You are in a car. The car is driving. In front of you in the road you see a big animal. Would you stop, even if you know you haven't crashed yet?"
The answer "must" (sorry for my arrogance! :biggrin: ) be: "Of course! You KNOW that you will die otherwise, and have the ability to do something about it."
that's pretty clever. Too bad analogies don't prove anything.
 

Similar threads

How Should Voters Choose in a Dilemma of Ethics vs. Practicality?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is There a Rational Way to Navigate Unwanted Empowerment Dilemmas?
Replies
12
Views
3K
News U.S. soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
Libertarian Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Replies
32
Views
7K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
Replies
4
Views
1K
Should the public know what you are thinking and concluding?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Defending your home, how far would you go?
6
Replies
179
Views
21K
Who gets the biggest piece of pig on the deserted island?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Understanding the divide white/black/blue
5
Replies
161
Views
12K
Was the Bombing of Dresden Justified?
Replies
2
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top