Would you murder Hitler ?

[El Greco]

Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?

[Blue Monk]

Sure, no problem. In the blink of an eye.

Yeah, I know I'd be altering the course of History but I'd take my chances on the alternative.

Pauly Shore might not be safe either.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I try not to advocate violence in any respect.

That being said, my only regret would be that I would not have the chance to wring his neck, myself, but would have to do it by pushing a button.

[geni]

What makes you think killing Hitler would have made the slightest difference?

[scribble]

Sure. And then I'd kill each and every person who VOTED HIM INTO OFFICE. Because you know, it's their fault, really. So why stop at Hitler?

I'll have to bring a lot of ammo. How big is this time machine?

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by geni
What makes you think killing Hitler would have made the slightest difference?

quick answer: It's worth a shot.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
What makes you think killing Hitler would have made the slightest difference?

Oh, I certainly think it would, for many reasons which are irrelevant to the purpose of this poll.

You can substitute Himmler (the leader and organizer of SS) for Hitler if this would make more difference in your opinion.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by scribble
Sure. And then I'd kill each and every person who VOTED HIM INTO OFFICE. Because you know, it's their fault, really. So why stop at Hitler?

I'll have to bring a lot of ammo. How big is this time machine?

Oops, secret ballot.

But thanks for playing and we have some lovely parting gifts including the Wedge-o-matic automatic wedgie dispenser.

C'mon guys, can't I kill him just because I really, really, REALLY, don't like him?

I'll see to that that Clay Aikins guy has a little .. ahem .. accident.

[Cleopatra]

Murder is not justified under any circumstances.( Save the lectures about self-defense because:1. Self-defense is not called murder.2. It's not what we discuss here)

No, I wouldn't kill Hitler because I wouldn't kill anybody anyway.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Murder is not justified under any circumstances.( Save the lectures about self-defense because:1. Self-defense is not called murder.2. It's not what we discuss here)

No, I wouldn't kill Hitler because I wouldn't kill anybody anyway.

Cleo, I respect that view more than you could possibly know.

My response to this poll is based on the fact that I know my own nature. I try not to let my anger get the better of me, but in the case of Hitler (assuming I would know what he would have done had he lived) I know it would.

So personally, I know I would murder him. I would wish to be able to do it with my own hands.

And it would haunt me for the rest of my life.

[Cleopatra]

It is just that I do not believe in violence. I believe in other things. I wouldn't murder Hitler even if I knew what he would do although my family has suffered.

It's a matter of principles. You either are pro violence or not there is no grey area here.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Please do not misunderstand me, Cleo. I am aginst violence. I do know me, however. I would let my anger get away from me.

[Badger]

Given what I understand about the politics, economics, etc. at that time, I think something bad probably would have happened in Europe no matter what.

I would whack him even though it'd be murder, in the hope that it'd be for a greater good, and I would take my punishment like a man.

(edited to add)

Pro violence, or not? No, Cleopatra, I don't think it's as black and white as you state. Why do you think it's that way? I'd like to know.

[Darat]

I very much want to say "no" since I abhor all violence and have tried to live as a pacifist for many years now, but like Some Friggin Guy I do have doubts on what I would actually do.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It's a matter of principles. You either are pro violence or not there is no grey area here.

Well, you already know what I believe about 'principles'. That they are completely useless, if not harmful :D

I will assume here that Hitler's murder would make a whole lot of difference (which I'm sure of, but I will just say 'assume' here because this is irrelevant). And I will just say that I consider this analogy to be the same: You are hiding in a safe place with a machine gun during WWII in Creta, when you notice a German firing squad who are ready to execute 100 people. You can kill the Germans, but you choose not to do so. Am I correct ?

Note that I don't judge your position n any way, I'm just trying to clarify the context of the poll.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco
Well, you already know what I believe about 'principles'. That they are completely useless, if not harmful :D Well.I disagree. Because of my principles I do not have moral dilemmas but this is another discussion.
I will assume here that Hitler's murder would make a whole lot of difference (which I'm sure of, but I will just say 'assume' here because this is irrelevant). And I will just say that I consider this analogy to be the same: You are hiding in a safe place with a machine gun during WWII in Creta, when you notice a German firing squad who are ready to execute 100 people. You can kill the Germans, but you choose not to do so. Am I correct ? Errr you are changing the subject now. You didn't clarify that you were talking about soldiers or guerillas I thought that you were talking about common citizens.

[MRC_Hans]

I do admire people with principles, especially pacifists. However, I think the stance is naive in the real world. You don't have to call on time-machines to construct a scenario where a person would kill - or be a fool.

Hans

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by El Greco
Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?
Where in time exactly?
In WWI and instead of shoting him in the nuts, aim a little bit higher?:p
Or in his childhood?

[PogoPedant]

Hmm... I guess I'd go back in time and kill Hitler. Then I would go back in time and kill whomever took Hitler's place. Then I would go back in time and kill that guy's replacement. After a few more timetravels I guess I would go back in time and kill myself, since I would become the single most active serial killer in human history. Or maybe I'd just kill the guy who invented the timemachine to avoid the whole thing.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Errr you are changing the subject now. You didn't clarify that you were talking about soldiers or guerillas I thought that you were talking about common citizens.

Hitler was the head of the army and so a soldier himself.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by El Greco
Hitler was the head of the army and so a soldier himself.
In a war I would kill him or any other enemy soldier without a second thought.

[El Greco]

For everyone who thinks that someone else would take Hitler's place and the history would ust repeat, I recommend reading Hitler's and Himmler's analysis in Erich Fromm's "Anatomy of human destructiveness". Such persons are not just bad people who just happened to be at the right (or wrong) place at the right time. For example, even with Hitler and WWII, I firmly believe that noone else could cause as much havoc as Himmler caused as the head of SS.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by El Greco
For everyone who thinks that someone else would take Hitler's place and the history would ust repeat, I recommend reading Hitler's and Himmler's analysis in Erich Fromm's "Anatomy of human destructiveness". Such persons are not just bad people who just happened to be at the right (or wrong) place at the right time. For example, even with Hitler and WWII, I firmly believe that noone else could cause as much havoc as Himmler caused as the head of SS.
But all the mistakes that he made would be differente, like if the "The Halte befehl" didn't existed, germany would have real chances in winnig the war.

[edited to correct the germans words]

[Badger]

Originally posted by El Greco
For everyone who thinks that someone else would take Hitler's place and the history would ust repeat, I recommend reading Hitler's and Himmler's analysis in Erich Fromm's "Anatomy of human destructiveness". Such persons are not just bad people who just happened to be at the right (or wrong) place at the right time. For example, even with Hitler and WWII, I firmly believe that noone else could cause as much havoc as Himmler caused as the head of SS.

I don't know if history would repeat, if someone else would "take Hitler's place", but there were bad things brewing. The climate in Germany, after WWI, and the effects of the Treaty of Versaille cannot be ignored. I don't think one can put aside Mussolini, Franko, and Stalin either.

It is my opinion that with Hitler out of the picture, the best one could have hoped for was a saner megalomaniac, who concentrated more on conventional war and less on ethnic cleansing.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

But all the mistakes that he made would be differente, like if the "halt angrieff" didn't existed, germany would have real chances in winnig the war.
I seem to remember that there was a British plan to kill Hitler - towards the end of the war (1944?) but it was aborted on the grounds that by then the Allies were better off leaving him in place. Can anyone confirm this?

[bjornart]

Those of you who've answered "yes" should read this short story of which I can't remember title or author.

The main character travels back in time to kill Hitler, because it's been determined that he's likely the cause of the number for dictatorships ruling the planet. Much knowledge has been lost, but they determine lederhosen to be a non conspicous costume for the time. Arriving in Germany around ... 32? 33? He's rounded up by the police, along with dozens of other time travelers there in the same errand, dressed in costumes from all over europe and ranging a couple hundred years in each direction. They all blame Hitler for something different, causing leftism to become dominant, causing the right to rise to power, causing women's lib, causing...

They're taken to see Hitler, who turns out to be a very reasonable man, only interested in doing what's best for Germany, without troubling the rest of the world, and everyone is charmed by him. "Maybe our information was wrong, he seems like a nice guy," they all think. Except our main man, he refuses to be charmed, and carries out the assasination.
Hitler dies and his aides are put in a difficult situation "Oh, dear, the speech is in 10 minutes, and he is dead. This will devastate the nation. We'll just have to let the look-alike take his place."

And in comes the look-alike, same appearance, but fierce, stupid, paranoid and with harsh and expressive gesticulation...

[El Greco]

I understand that we cannot speculate about what would have happened but, once again, it is irrelevant. This is what I clarified with my reply to Cleopatra and the firing squad analogy. In fact, you don't even have to assume a war. Just assume that you can kill one person who is ready to murder lots of innocent civilians. Would you do it ? For the purpose of my poll, it is the same question.

[Dragon]

The British SOE plan to assasinate Hitler was called Operation Foxley.
The BBC have a "what if.." piece on it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/killing_hitler_01.shtml).

[Badger]

Good point, Bjornart.

El Greco, you used the phrase "one person who is ready to murder". I think this is a key point.

When hunting, one must be sure of one's target, and also what lays beyond the target. If I were to have the opportunity to murder Hitler, I would make sure I have the right guy, both physically and mentally. I would not go after the boy, Adolph Hitler, nor the Private Hitler in the 1st world war. I would make sure the person I tried to kill was the one who was the obvious perpetrator of the atrocities of the 2nd world war.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I do admire people with principles, especially pacifists. However, I think the stance is naive in the real world. You don't have to call on time-machines to construct a scenario where a person would kill - or be a fool.

Hans Since El Greco clarified I stand by my opinion of course but I disagree with the above. It's not naive to stand by your principles and to believe that problems must be resolved peacefully by negotiations or in court. It takes more time but the results are permanent.

Amnesty International was founded by a couple of stubborn European lawyers. They had the alternative to form an underground organization and attempt to murder dictators, instead they believed in the power of law and they fought for their beliefs using legitimate methods. Do you know that dictators started kidnapping people instead of putting them in prison because they feared Amnesty International? Maybe I should mention how AI worked in the first years after it was founded but I don't wish to derail the thread that much. So, when Pinochet introduced the fashion of missing persons AI found alternative ways to fight violations of human rights.

Resorting to violence is easy but it doesn't solve any problems.I wouldn't murder Hitler but I will never stop fighting with peaceful methods those who advocate his ideas.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Badger
El Greco, you used the phrase "one person who is ready to murder". I think this is a key point.

Of course this is a key point, this is why I used the firing squad analogy. You can keep looking at them and think "hey, maybe they will not shoot". But they will, and you know it. And you have the power to prevent it. Of course there is this infinitesimal chance that something will happen and they won't shoot. Because of this chance you will remain idle ?

I'm just clarifying here, not judging any positions.

[Badger]

I understand what you're saying, Cleopatra, and it's an admirable thing.

I also know that there are people who don't understand anything but violence. I also doubt the effectiveness of negotiating with psychopaths.

[Brian the Snail]

If it was before WWII, I would have killed him. I once read a biography of Hitler, and what really stood out for me was the fact that none of it was inevitable, especially when he was rising to power in the 20s and 30s. Not only was a load of blind luck involved, but at any stage in that time someone could have stopped him, but they didn't. Mostly this was due to the authorities of the time in Germany being more scared of the alternatives (i.e. the Communists) than of the Nazis, with whom they were more sympathetic ideologically. Hitler was also very much the kingpin of the whole movement, and without him (in particular his rhetorical skills) it wouldn't have stood a chance IMO.

Maybe without him, there would have been another dictator in Germany. But I doubt that anybody could have been as crazed, and have unleashed as much destruction on the world, as he did.

I certainly don't condone murder, but given the choice between a life of one and the life of millions, I would choose the former every time.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
given the choice between a life of one and the life of millions, I would choose the former every time.
What if is millions of hitlers against one gandhi?:p

[Skeptical Greg]

Could I just marry his mom, instead ?



Seriously, there would be many alternatives to alter the impact of one man's effect on history, other than killing him..

Of course, killing him would be the simplest choice.

However, with Hitler out of the way, an even more proficient political/military stucture could have arisen in Germany with even greater social implications..

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Since El Greco clarified I stand by my opinion of course

You mean that you wouldn't kill the firing squad ? This is a slight derail, but you wouldn't kill them not even if they were going to execute your whole family among the others ?

[Lisa Simpson]

I too, am a pacifist and abhor violence. However, if I stop and think about all the people who died because of the Final Solution, I get mad. And then I would be sorely tempted to kill him.

Historically, though, I don't think killing him at the beginning of the war would have done much. It would have to be even further back, when he was just starting out. Or towards the end of the war, when even his own people were trying to kill him.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco


You mean that you wouldn't kill the firing squad ? This is a slight derail, but you wouldn't kill them not even if they were going to execute your whole family among the others ?Sorry but we weren't asked to reply to that question and now you lost me. Can you re-post a specific question, please? :)

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Can you re-post a specific question, please? :)
If you were in the israely army, would you kill a palestinian "freedom fighter" if you realise that he is an imminent threat?:D :p

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

If you were in the israely army, would you kill a palestinian "freedom fighter" if you realise that he is an eminent threat?:D :p Yes I would but this wasn't El Greco's question.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Sorry but we weren't asked to reply to that question and now you lost me. Can you re-post a specific question, please? :)

Ok, I'll try to rephrase a question with the same meaning as my original one, and without involving any formal war. Basically the idea was whether you would murder someone that you know beyond any doubt that he is going to kill a great number of innocent people. I used the "back to time" example of Hitler so that we can be sure about the results of our inactivity, but since many people say things could go the same or even worse, I clarified with the firing squad example. For me it doesn't make any difference since even with the firing squad example we can't know whether our intervence will be for the better or the worse. For example, a German officer might get pissed off that the execution failed and order the execution of an even greater number of people.

Anyway, I'll also try to avoid a scenario with war. Let's just say that you happen to overhear a conversation of terrorists who are about to set off explosives and blow a church with hundreds of people inside. Let's just also say that the explosion is going to happen really soon and there is no other way of preventing it other than killing the terrorists, which you could do pretty easily with your gun. Would you kill them ? You can also think of the case where your family is in the church.

[El Greco]

And it doesn't even have to be terrorists, let's just say that it is about a well-known criminal like Passaris.

[LuxFerum]

If there is no other way to avoid it, what is the doubt?
And it would be a extremely stressful situation, I bet some of those who said they would, wouldn't, and some of those who wouldn't, would.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
If there is no other way to avoid it, what is the doubt?

Many people say they wouldn't kill under any conditions. Some even go as far as to say they wouldn't even defend themselves. I just want to see how many people believe that murder is wrong no matter the circumstances.

[headscratcher4]

One could argue that the solution is not to murder Hitler, but admit him to art school back in 1908...It is all foolish speculation on alternative histories, but a Hitlerless-Germany would likely still have produced an anti-semetic rightwing movement that while possibly less deadly and aggressive, would certainly have been repressive and pretty vile. In the alternative, it might have produced another stalinist-left wing regime, of the kind that would have murdered millions a'la Stalin and the purges. In short, it seems to me that conditions were ripe for mass murder, hatred and war on the right and left irrespective of "Hitler"...he only stirred the pot, the soup was still a boiling whether he stirred it or not. IMO

[LuxFerum]

But it is quite different to ask if killing should be avoided in all situations or if someone have the physicological strength to terminate someone life.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
But it is quite different to ask if killing should be avoided in all situations or if someone have the physicological strength to terminate someone life.

It is, but it would get really complicated. So I'm just asking what people think they would do. The ficticiousness of the story guarantees that the dilemma remains on a theoretical and intellectual level.

[El Greco]

Hey Cleopatra, I've changed my sig for you! :p

[roger]

Not only would I murder him, if I was taken back so far that he was still a fetus in his mother's womb, I'd take them both out. If he was in an apartment building with 1000 people, the button press was going to drop a bomb, I'd do it.

Because given the scenerio, one way or the other, there is going to be murder. The only choice is who? Millions of innocent people (let Hitler live), or one, Hitler, mass murderer? To me the choice is clear.

SOMEONE is going to die in this scenerio. I'm just guiding things to the best possible solution. Like Cleopatra, I would certainly prefer courts to take care of this, but that option is not available to me.

Not acting results in the blood of 3 million (or however many were killed by Hitler and the 2nd world war), destruction of economies and personal fortunes. So, to me, not acting is a heinous act.

With that said, I could imagine being enough of a coward to not push that button. I would hope I would.

[smalltlalk_2k]

Hell yeah! I'd kill him. Then I'd travel back in time and kill him again and again and again. I'd use different methods of killing him each time. Hell, I would probably start a business where vacationers can travel back in time and kill him, I'd imagine there would be big bucks in that business.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco


Ok, I'll try to rephrase a question with the same meaning as my original one, and without involving any formal war. Basically the idea was whether you would murder someone that you know beyond any doubt that he is going to kill a great number of innocent people. I used the "back to time" example of Hitler so that we can be sure about the results of our inactivity, but since many people say things could go the same or even worse, I clarified with the firing squad example. For me it doesn't make any difference since even with the firing squad example we can't know whether our intervence will be for the better or the worse. For example, a German officer might get pissed off that the execution failed and order the execution of an even greater number of people.

Anyway, I'll also try to avoid a scenario with war. Let's just say that you happen to overhear a conversation of terrorists who are about to set off explosives and blow a church with hundreds of people inside. Let's just also say that the explosion is going to happen really soon and there is no other way of preventing it other than killing the terrorists, which you could do pretty easily with your gun. Would you kill them ? You can also think of the case where your family is in the church.

Now I got it. No I would not kill them. I am against murder and nothing would make me change my mind. I would try to stop them but I wouldn't kill them. The only way for me to kill somebody is while trying to protect a child or an elder person but this doesn't count in this discussion because it is considered defense.

It's not that I am a hero or a nice person.It's because I believe that consistency is important in life especially when you try to fight issues using legal ways. You cannot stop others doing what you consider wrong by using their means.

[ BTW El Greco since you made a comment about principles.I have violated my principles only once so far and it was about a personal matter. I was so tortured by the moral dilemma I found myself in that there is no way for me to do it again and about any matter.

Also my principles happen to be very inconvenient for me so I don't share the sentiment of your signature.]

[DanishDynamite]

No, I wouldn't go back and kill Hitler, for several reasons:

1) Why wait until he was born and had grown up and entered politics? Just go back and make sure his mother and father never meet.

2) Given that a time machine was even possible, once you start meddling in history, you better be damn sure of all the consequences. In a worst case scenario, the repercutions of killing Hitler could mean that I was never born and where would the world be then? :)

In regard to El Greco's revised question, then yes, I would kill those who are about to murder others, if I had a good chance of not getting killed myself.

And Cleo, I don't really see how your philosophy can stand up to a bit of scrutiny. You say that you would kill to protect an elder or a child, but isn't that what you would be doing if you killed some terrorist about to blow up a church? And why would you only do it for a child or an elderly? Are they more deserving of life then someone in their prime?

[scribble]

Originally posted by El Greco
I understand that we cannot speculate about what would have happened but, once again, it is irrelevant. This is what I clarified with my reply to Cleopatra and the firing squad analogy. In fact, you don't even have to assume a war. Just assume that you can kill one person who is ready to murder lots of innocent civilians. Would you do it ? For the purpose of my poll, it is the same question.

When I was 18, I got my phonecall from the local Army recruiter.

I was a very, very polite young man, and also rather pacifistic. When the recruiter called, I told him nicely, "Thank you, but I don't feel comfortable taking another life."

He responded, "Well, if there were a man pointing a gun at your mom and you could either kill him or let your mom die, which would you do?"

I responded, "It's due to the hard work of men like you and the local police officer, who know what decision they would make in that circumstance, that I'll never have to find out what I would do. Thank you and have a nice day."

Now, that's not true anymore. These days I might almost like an excuse to shoot an idiot like that. The guy pointing the gun at my mom, not the Army recruiter, I mean. Hell, maybe both. That's not the point. I'm not sure I had a point.

But to answer the QUESTION asked more seriously than my first reply, I would not go back in time to kill Hitler.

[sackett]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes I would but this wasn't El Greco's question.

Bravo for you, great queen! Of -course- it's El Greco's question, and of -course- you wouldn't try to stand by an unworkable principle!

We may abhor violence, but that includes violence directed at ourselves. There are minds that are simply too small to reach, and the only cure for them is innoculation with Formula .30-06.

I'd snuff Hiddler the Piddler quick as that, but I'd shove in a full clip and get Bormann, Dicke Goering, Himmler, and the loathsome Dr. Goebbels too.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The only way for me to kill somebody is while trying to protect a child or an elder person but this doesn't count in this discussion because it is considered defense.



That's odd. Wouldn't you be saving a HELL of a lot of elderly and children by killing Hitler? Or is killing only okay in your philosophy when you do it to protect a child or elderly person that you *know*, not hundreds of thousands of "strangers" who happen to be children or elderly?

What an odd perspective.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

And Cleo, I don't really see how your philosophy can stand up to a bit of scrutiny. You say that you would kill to protect an elder or a child, but isn't that what you would be doing if you killed some terrorist about to blow up a church? And why would you only do it for a child or an elderly? Are they more deserving of life then someone in their prime? You want me to take back this marriage proposal don't you? :p
I reply here to everybody. I would kill somebody to defend an elder person or a kid if I saw them threatened, in front of my eyes with a gun because I imagined a scene that would involve robbery or assault. Different situation than the one El Greco imagined.

The reason I group elders and kids separetely is because I consider them weaker.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You want me to take back this marriage proposal don't you? :p
I reply here to everybody. I would kill somebody to defend an elder person or a kid if I saw them threatened, in front of my eyes with a gun because I imagined a scene that would involve robbery or assault. Different situation than the one El Greco imagined.


How is it different? Many elderly and children died under Hitlers regime. Not just one. To save *one* elderly or child, you admit you would kill someone. Yet to kill thousands upon thousands, you would not?

YOu have a strange philosophy.

Is it that you believe Hitler was not responsible for the deaths? PErhaps you would have individually executed each and every person who shot/gassed/otherwise killed a jew, but left Hitler alive because he had the good sense to let other people kill for him?

[Ipecac]

No, I would not kill Hitler.

From hindsight, some sixty years later, I have to say that things aren't so bad today that I would risk meddling with history.

If I took out Hitler, perhaps WWII might not have happened, but this very likely could have allowed the Soviet Union to build the bomb before the US. In the mid-50's the Soviet Union might have bombed the west into oblivion and hundreds of millions might have died while the rest of the world was subjugated under Communist rule. There are other, equally horrific, scenarios that come to mind.

It's not possible to say with any certainty where we would be today in the face of such a significant change. While I certainly abhor all the violence and death Hitler visited on the world, without perfect knowledge of the consequences, it would be foolish to mess with history.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by scribble
How is it different? Many elderly and children died under Hitlers regime. Not just one. To save *one* elderly or child, you admit you would kill someone. Yet to kill thousands upon thousands, you would not? It is different. Because my response to the first example: somebody hits a child with a club would be spontaneous, I wouldn't have time to act in a different way, I would shout a warning to that person and I would pull the trigger only if he didn't stop.
The scenario EG described is different and my answer remains the same. I am sorry. No I wouldn't commit murder and even in my first hypothetical scenario I would have warned " my victim"first.

Is it that you believe Hitler was not responsible for the deaths? PErhaps you would have individually executed each and every person who shot/gassed/otherwise killed a jew, but left Hitler alive because he had the good sense to let other people kill for him? What sort of question is that? Do you think that Hitler did what he did alone, he had the support of the German people. They supported him when they didn't know what he was coming up with ( he didn't know it either at the beginning) they kept supporting him when he started the genocide. The question is simplistic when you consider that not even the Allies have bombed the camps.

I am sorry to uspet you but I cannot justify murder the way it was described by EG. Most people would go back in History and murder Hitler. I wouldn't. I would go back to organize better the opposition to him but not to murder him. I am against murder. Period.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:You want me to take back this marriage proposal don't you? :p On the contrary, my sweet, I'm trying to ensure that the marriage will go smoothly . Remember, you have a temper, are smart and yet only really respect a man who can handle you. Well, as is clear from our interactions, I can. ;)
I reply here to everybody. I would kill somebody to defend an elder person or a kid if I saw them threatened, in front of my eyes with a gun because I imagined a scene that would involve robbery or assault. Different situation than the one El Greco imagined.

The reason I group elders and kids separetely is because I consider them weaker. So you would only kill someone about to commit (mass) murder if you could physically see the people targeted and if they were "weak". And if the person about to be murdered was your husband in his prime (i.e. me :)), you would do nothing?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So you would only kill someone about to commit (mass) murder if you could physically see the people targeted and if they were "weak". And if the person about to be murdered was your husband in his prime (i.e. me :)), you would do nothing?

You are crazy DD. :)

Seriously. If my husband was imprisoned and he was facing an execution no I wouldn't kill the guards, I am terribly sorry. :( My ideal is Socrates Danish Dynamite. A free thinker who never compromised but above all he lived and died by his principles.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry to uspet you ...


Not upset, just curious.

I cannot argue with you that diplomacy is always the best option. However, I think it is naieve to assume that diplomacy will always avert disaster.

Sometimes, a man feels talking has failed him and action must be taken. At that point, you cannot respond further by talking, you must also take action.


I also disagree with you that elderly and children are weaker. Everyone dies just as easiy in a gas chamber - or in front of a gun - or with 15 20" stab wounds.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by scribble
I cannot argue with you that diplomacy is always the best option. However, I think it is naieve to assume that diplomacy will always avert disaster.

Sometimes, a man feels talking has failed him and action must be taken. At that point, you cannot respond further by talking, you must also take action.
I also disagree with you that elderly and children are weaker. Everyone dies just as easiy in a gas chamber - or in front of a gun - or with 15 20" stab wounds. We had a similar discussion in the summer about gun control if you remember scribble! I agree that dimplomacy, parliaments or courts of law cannot always save you from disaster but have in mind that all the breakthroughs in History took place in those institutions and not in the streets were bloosheds were talking place. All the revolutionary things that changed the world took place either into a parliament or in a court of law.

The procedure is slower and to be fair many times those procedures are infuenced by the violent action some people have taken but I rather be among the negotiatiors.That's all.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:You are crazy DD. :)I prefer the term "lovable".
Seriously. If my husband was imprisoned and he was facing an execution no I wouldn't kill the guards, I am terribly sorry. :( Even if he was being executed for being a freedom-fighter and the executioners were the corrupt, murdering thugs of the tyrant?

Anyway, I wasn't referring to a fireing squad. I was thinking of a thug about to blow away your husband in a dark alley.
My ideal is Socrates Danish Dynamite. A free thinker who never compromised but above all he lived and died by his principles. Was Socrates a firm believer in non-violence in all situations? Was he ever faced with the choice of saving a loved one through violence?

[DanishDynamite]

Cleo,

I just thought of another scenario. One of your loved ones is about to be murdered, you have a gun and you will probably be murdered after your loved one. Would you still let the murder first kill your loved one before you could justify killing the murderer as "self-defense"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Even if he was being executed for being a freedom-fighter and the executioners were the corrupt, murdering thugs of the tyrant?Why you want to refine the question so much? Do you find my opinion that shocking or you find me hyperbolic? This is how I was brought up. It is in my genes. You would do the same DD.Was Socrates a firm believer in non-violence in all situations? Was he ever faced with the choice of saving a loved one through violence? He wasn't a believer of non violence--he believed in laws but I cannot answer to the rest of your questions regarding Socrates. Greeks rarely executed people but in war they were fierce. During a battle the enemies had to die, they were really cruel soldiers but they practiced diplomacy and they believed in institutions.I think that in this discussion though we shouldn't confuse the war periods because this is not what El Greco asked.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I just thought of another scenario. One of your loved ones is about to be murdered, you have a gun and you will probably be murdered after your loved one. Would you still let the murder first kill your loved one before you could justify killing the murderer as "self-defense"? I don't know and this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. This is not what EG asked.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:Why you want to refine the question so much? Do you find my opinion that shocking or you find me hyperbolic? Yes, I find your view quite shocking, I admit. It seems so arbitrary and frankly, a little inhuman. You have a viewpoint which more or less means that you wouldn't protect your child from a murderer the moment your child turned 18. At least, that is the way it sounds to me.
This is how I was brought up. It is in my genes. You would do the same DD.No, I would certainly not do the same. In a life-or-death situation I would have no hesitation in caring more for the lives of the innocent versus the life of the murderer.
He wasn't a believer of non violence--he believed in laws but I cannot answer to the rest of your questions regarding Socrates. Greeks rarely executed people but in war they were fierce. During a battle the enemies had to die, they were really cruel soldiers but they practiced diplomacy and they believed in institutions.I think that in this discussion though we shouldn't confuse the war periods because this is not what El Greco asked. Can I ask what particular trait of Socrates you so admire? Is it the "believed in laws" bit?

[Dancing David]

There is another time travel short story that posited Hitler as a double agent sent back in time to screw up WWII>

There were so many piss poor decisions he made that hindred the war movement that it kind of makes sense.

There were some officers who tried to kill him, but by some miss chance someone moved the brifcase and changed history.

Yes I would kill someone if I felt it would stop the 20 million deaths in Europe in WWII,i would never be the same but I would do it.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:I don't know and this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. This is not what EG asked. It has to do with your proclaimed view that you would never kill another human just to save the life of someone who isn't "weaker", as defined by you.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
We had a similar discussion in the summer about gun control if you remember scribble! I agree that dimplomacy, parliaments or courts of law cannot always save you from disaster but have in mind that all the breakthroughs in History took place in those institutions and not in the streets were bloosheds were talking place. All the revolutionary things that changed the world took place either into a parliament or in a court of law.

But how did those people get in a position to make changes of law and parliaments? One cannot have Revolution, and its potential benefits without the onset of violence. To me the two are quite inextricably linked to one another. Be a pacifist if you must, but acknowledge the role that violence plays in any revolutionary scenario, and that in many situations it is often a necessary catalyst for change.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry to uspet you but I cannot justify murder the way it was described by EG. Most people would go back in History and murder Hitler. I wouldn't. I would go back to organize better the opposition to him but not to murder him. I am against murder. Period.

What seems to be clear is...you value your principles over millions of lives.

How noble.

[evildave]

If you're going to go back in time, why not kidnap the baby, instead? After all, with a different upbringing, no involvement in the first great war, etc., you don't end up with a "Hitler" the mass murderer. You end up with a "Hitler" the unknown painter.

Besides, if you eliminated Hitler, the Nazis might have just found someone who was a lot smarter and who carried out their genocide AND was smart enough to win the war, too.

Of course, why stop there? Go back another 40 years and change the circumstances and lives in the people that started the first world war in the first place, and the second World War would be taken care of, for the situation that got the political situation ripe for "nazis" and a second war started in Europe were a direct result of the first.

While you're at it, quell the Japanese Imperial expansion at its roots and all the trouble that caused. Weren't there some key actors who could have been changed by some experience, or brought up differently as well? Perhaps if America hadn't sent the ships in to establish the trade, Japan would have remained a backwards and insular state until much later.

Heck, why not take care of the dependence on petroleum that developed in the 20th century. What if you brought Edison some working models of, and factory plans (compatible with materials available in that day) for producing high output photovoltaic devices and high capacity Li/Ion batteries and solid state electronic motor controls when they were still tinkering with electrical disrtibution and automobiles could have gone "either way"?

The rural electrification act might have installed solar panels on roofs across the country, instead.

No matter what you did to make "big" changes, you would make an impact on who people met, and change who was born. Millions of lives would "never happen", while millions of others took their places.

[El Greco]

Please look at my rephrased question on the top of this page which doesn't include the time travel part.

[evildave]

OK, imminant danger to many, bad guys about to really do it? Nearest to the switch gets it first.

Bang, bang, bang.

No problem at all.

If I am carrying a gun, it means I am ready to use it. Otherwise, it's just so much metal that attracts bullets my way.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Ipecac
No, I would not kill Hitler.

From hindsight, some sixty years later, I have to say that things aren't so bad today that I would risk meddling with history.

If I took out Hitler, perhaps WWII might not have happened, but this very likely could have allowed the Soviet Union to build the bomb before the US. In the mid-50's the Soviet Union might have bombed the west into oblivion and hundreds of millions might have died while the rest of the world was subjugated under Communist rule. There are other, equally horrific, scenarios that come to mind.

It's not possible to say with any certainty where we would be today in the face of such a significant change. While I certainly abhor all the violence and death Hitler visited on the world, without perfect knowledge of the consequences, it would be foolish to mess with history. I have to agree with Ipecac. Japan certainly wouldn't be the country it is today if not for what Hitler started in Europe.

Knowing that, how should a Japanese survivor answer the question - If you had a Time Machine... would you go back and kill Truman?

Still, for me on the Hitler scenario. I would not go back and kill Hitler just because I had a Time Machine. However if I was transported back to that time and had to live through the horrors I knew were coming, and I knew that even if I killed him no one would be able to pin it on me or even be looking for me, then I would be sorely tempted to kill him as a kind of self defensive act.

[Brian]

Great line from the movie version of the Dead Zone.
The main character asks his doctor if he'd go back and kill Hitler given the chance. The doctor explains (more or less)
"I am a doctor. I took an oath to ease suffering and save lives. I'd have no choice but to kill the son of a bitch."

[c4ts]

I'm sure you could prevent all the carnage and suffering Hitler caused without actually killing Hitler. Hell, get him into art school early enough and he won't even consider a political career. Of course, there will still be a WWII, but at least Hitler won't be behind it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by El Greco
Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?

Nah. I'd have invited him to a nice seder, told him some Jewish jokes, and gotten him into the wholesale business.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by frisian


What seems to be clear is...you value your principles over millions of lives.

How noble. The reason why you say that is because you believe that the only way to save millions' lives is a murder.Well it's not.

El Greco my initial reply was to the original question. I will discuss about that.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The reason why you say that is because you believe that the only way to save millions' lives is a murder.Well it's not.

El Greco my initial reply was to the original question. I will discuss about that.

The only way? I never said that.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by frisian


The only way? I never said that. I know that you didn't but if you suggest that my refusal to murder Hitler would lead many people to death it means that you consider that such situations can be resolved only with a murder that if it is not committed other people will die. Things are not like that. That's why I said that I would go back and I would organize the opposition to Hitler better. Violence is not the only way to resist to somebody, in fact on the long run violence is the less effective way.

[sorgoth]

I'm not sure.

From a purely logical perspective, no, I would not. Hitler made some stupid decisions, and there was already a lot of anti semitism going on. What if there had been someone more intelligent at the lead?


However, if I was there, with a gun, and had every chance to do so... I'm not sure if I would. I might, I might not. I really can't tell.

I might see all the suffering, and...

[DanishDynamite]

My Deliciousness, will thou not deign to address my unworthy points? Art thou angry with thy worshipper who's only wish is to place thy on a pedestal?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I know that you didn't but if you suggest that my refusal to murder Hitler would lead many people to death it means that you consider that such situations can be resolved only with a murder that if it is not committed other people will die. Things are not like that. That's why I said that I would go back and I would organize the opposition to Hitler better. Violence is not the only way to resist to somebody, in fact on the long run violence is the less effective way.

Wrong still. Murder is not the only solution I would suggest.

What things are not like what?

Organize opposition? How so? What's your plan?

Perhaps my plan that is in my head is simplistic, I am more than eager to here your detailed plan.

How is violence the less effective way? What plan do you have that would be new or even an old manner which has worked time and time again to stop murderous leaders of countries or tribes?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

It's a matter of principles. You either are pro violence or not there is no grey area here.

there is always a grey area. always. it's one of the fundamental aspects of life.

[epepke]

Originally posted by evildave
Heck, why not take care of the dependence on petroleum that developed in the 20th century. What if you brought Edison some working models of, and factory plans (compatible with materials available in that day) for producing high output photovoltaic devices and high capacity Li/Ion batteries and solid state electronic motor controls when they were still tinkering with electrical disrtibution and automobiles could have gone "either way"?

There's an antique car and music museum in Sarasota Florida that I used to go to as a kid. One of the oldest cars they had was electric. I'm not sure what the actual date was, but it was pre-1920. It still used the horse-carriage suspension and design that was used at first.

Searching the web, I found http://www.didik.com/ev_hist.htm which shows an awful lot of them.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by frisian
Wrong still. Murder is not the only solution I would suggest.

But yet this is what you did.Organize opposition? How so? What's your plan? This is not our discussion here, this might be the topic of another thread.
How is violence the less effective way? What plan do you have that would be new or even an old manner which has worked time and time again to stop murderous leaders of countries or tribes? I think that most people miss the point of those questions. Some times those who pose them do not know the nature of such debates either. I have noticed this and this is why I avoid such discussions and I am sorry I participated in this one because once the author didn't like the replies he re-phrased his question.What you do now is to introduce another topic in the discussion, it is like you have not decided yet and you want for clarifications in order to decide.If El Greco agree his topic do be derailed I will reply.

EdipisReks the non-existence of grey areas is the only thing I am certain about in this life but this is another topic.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Yes, I find your view quite shocking, I admit. It seems so arbitrary and frankly, a little inhuman. You have a viewpoint which more or less means that you wouldn't protect your child from a murderer the moment your child turned 18. At least, that is the way it sounds to me.

My opinion is by definition arbitrary since the question addressed each of us separately so each of one posted what he thinks right. Yes you understood quite well, this is the reason why I said to El Greco previously that my principles are not convenient and they have a general and absolute application. Somebody I know made the same choice once. He refused to collaborate with the Junda and he ended up in prison while his wife was 8 months pregnant. His kids met their dad when they were 18 months old. Some people called him selfish. His kids feel really lucky to have been brought up by such parents.
So, it costs to have principles and I think that it's good to have thought about those things before getting married and having kids, also you must let the other part know that when it comes to personal morality and principles things are not negotiable.No, I would certainly not do the same. In a life-or-death situation I would have no hesitation in caring more for the lives of the innocent versus the life of the murderer.
No you don't value the life of the murderer more. You dismiss the idea that a murder is the magical way to solve this problem. You don't do it for him, you do it for you and for the sake of the principles you believe in.
You know, if dictators weren't afarid of human rights activists they wouldn't try to intimidate and harm the members of Amnesty International. But they are terribly afraid of them that's why they try to stop them with violent means instead of ignoring them.

Think it otherwise. A bomb explodes and a dictator dies in Middle East. It will be another bomb that exploded in a heated area. A chaos will follow and a different dictator will change his place. If instead of plugging a bomb you had some people plugging a file with negative reports under the nose of authorities in the western world you would make a difference.

We are in 2004 and we came to the point to consider Human Rights the corner stone of every civilized society because of those who chose NOT to kill but to fight with legal means. Their friends and families might call them selfish and maybe they are but societies have developed the sensitivity towards some issues thanks to them.Can I ask what particular trait of Socrates you so admire? Is it the "believed in laws" bit? Socrates' philosophy is not very much of my taste but yes I admire that he rather died than violating his principles. In my opinion what is more important than life itself is a life with dignity.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, it costs to have principles

No, it doesn't cost more than the alternative, which is to make decisions. Every decision has a cost. Principles are convenient because they are premade decisions.

Edited to add: Not to mention the added convenience that you don't have to rationally explain your actions when they are based on "principles".

[scribble]

Originally posted by El Greco
No, it doesn't cost more than the alternative, which is to make decisions. Every decision has a cost. Principles are convenient because they are premade decisions.

Great point.

Cleopatra has already decided that violence is only necessary to protect a particular "weak" person as defined by her.

I'm a little more comfortable making that decision on the spot.

My own moral code includes the idea that it doesn't matter what people think of me if I'm dead.

[Mercutio]

Hmm...just found this thread. It always interests me when people claim that they know what they would do in a given situation such as this. Oddly enough, I come out of it with the most respect for those people who do not know what they would do in the extremely personal situation, and those who could not see themselves as committing murder in the more remote situation (like the original question). I guess that puts me squarely in favor of Cleopatra's stance on this.

I was raised a pacifist, but always wondered whether, if it really came down to it and I was being attacked, might I hurt someone else to defend myself? I conceded that I probably would--it just seemed to make sense. Then, the opportunity arose to empirically test the question :D. In other words, I got mugged (well, beaten, but they were not interested in money). I found myself thinking, while being punched, that I could easily take these guys if I wanted to. Strangely, though, I did not want to; I found myself thinking that I could not, at this moment, stop them from being violent, but I could stop myself from being violent. I had no regrets at all for my actions, even as I had my jaw x-rayed, even as I ate lunch through a straw for a couple of weeks. (For the record, I did press charges, and they plea-bargained).

My point is (I know it is here somewhere), I did not know in advance what I would do. I actually had guessed wrong--I thought I would throw principle away, and I did not. What if the same thing happened tomorrow? Or what if I am in the position some of you have hypothetically placed Cleopatra in? Would I act to save my family? The only honest answer I can give is "I do not know."

What of the Hitler example? Again, I think the only honest answer is "I do not know." But because of the difference in time-frame, I side with those who believe they could not do it. (As an aside, I note a few posters here who make the point that it could easily be the fault of the situation as much as the individual, here. Killing the individual provides a convenient scapegoat, whereast changing a sociopolitical climate involves much more work than pushing a button. But then, we like to take the easy way out, don't we?:D )

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco
No, it doesn't cost more than the alternative, which is to make decisions. Every decision has a cost. Principles are convenient because they are premade decisions. The truth is that about serious things in life I decide in a different way than I decide what to eat or what lipstick to buy.

I know that some people don't make that distinction and that they decide about important things in life the way the choose which shoes to buy.

Yes I have already made some decisions in my life. For example if I ever be out of job and starve I intend to make a living out of cleaning other people's houses and not out of prostitution or I won't steal. I have also decided that I will never tell a lie that might ruin another person's life ( in court). It's convenient to know in advance that I won't lie , I won't steal and I won't have sex for money, so to focus on my everyday's dilemma's.

I am aware of the fact that when I wonder what to wear in court in a trial I am involved some other people that come to the same trial as witnesses wonder whether they should lie in a murder case or not only because they haven't made this convenient premade decision earlier in their lives.Edited to add: Not to mention the added convenience that you don't have to rationally explain your actions when they are based on "principles". People tend to find irrational what they don't understand or they don't agree with. I am aware of this too.

[scribble]

Can I just say it's nice to have an argument for a change where I'm really not sure who is Right in the capital-R sense?

This is one of those. Both well presented arguments, even if my gut reaction is that one of them is naieve.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by scribble
Can I just say it's nice to have an argument for a change where I'm really not sure who is Right in the capital-R sense?

This is one of those. Both well presented arguments, even if my gut reaction is that one of them is naieve. But exactly! This is what keeps the society going: people who disagree and debate. During a debate many new things might appear. Something that doesn't happen when you resort to violence in order to solve an argument. ;)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am aware of the fact that when I wonder what to wear in court in a trial I am involved some other people that come to the same trial as witnesses wonder whether they should lie in a murder case or not only because they haven't made this convenient premade decision earlier in their lives.People tend to find irrational what they don't understand or they don't agree with. I am aware of this too.

This is the first time since I registered that I use the "strawman" objection, but I believe this is the definition of it. :p

You are saying that people decide light-headed on serious matters because they don't accept your "premade decisions".

Well, this is not the case. There is more pain and more suffering and more thinking involved when you haven't decided beforehand what you will do when a difficult moment comes. And it is more mature to understand that life may present you with much more than you can think and decide for in advance.

Imo, "premade" decisions are an indication of insecurity.

It is also very funny watching you to try and justify your "principles". From the moment you enter the "rationalization of principles" process, you are actually debating about something that is de facto undebatable.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
But exactly! This is what keeps the society going: people who disagree and debate. During a debate many new things might appear. Something that doesn't happen when you resort to violence in order to solve an argument. ;)

Touche!

-- but if I were to imagine someone like Riddick, who feels violence is an option - actually followed through on his threat, and came to my house, and put a gun in my mouth (perhaps catching me unawares), would I try to reason with him at that point?

It's hard to talk with a gun in your mouth.

When we can get everyone to agree that violence is not an option, then I won't have to hold onto violence as a last resort myself. Sadly, I doubt that day will ever come, as human beings are fragile, material things all too prone to breaking. I believe desiring to kill another creature is a mental illness - one that is going to crop up again and again so long as the power to kill is within our grasp.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco
This is the first time since I registered that I use the "strawman" objection, but I believe this is the definition of it. :p

You are saying that people decide light-headed on serious matters because they don't accept your "premade decisions".

No this is what you say by dismissing my principles and by destorting them with renaming them.Well, this is not the case. There is more pain and more suffering and more thinking involved when you haven't decided beforehand what you will do when a difficult moment comes. I have never said that is easy to buy shoes especially if you are a woman or if you escort a woman who wants to buy shoes. And it is more mature to understand that life may present you with much more than you can think and decide for in advance. I find interesting the fact that you consider yourself so mature that you lecture others on it especially when you seem that you haven't decided yet if murder is an acceptable practice or not.Imo, "premade" decisions are an indication of insecurity. Your opinion is respected I suggest you stay away from insecure people, especially when they remind to you how difficult it is to buy shoes :)It is also very funny watching you to try and justify your "principles". From the moment you enter the "rationalization of principles" process, you are actually debating about something that is de facto undebatable. Now you blame me for replying to your questions? Now. I admit that I have to think if I should have replied to your posts or I should have ignored them.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by scribble
It's hard to talk with a gun in your mouth. Indeed! That's why El Greco asked if we ( a third part) would kill Hitler but in any case what you say is true.When we can get everyone to agree that violence is not an option, then I won't have to hold onto violence as a last resort myself. Sadly, I doubt that day will ever come, as human beings are fragile, material things all too prone to breaking. I believe desiring to kill another creature is a mental illness - one that is going to crop up again and again so long as the power to kill is within our grasp.This will never happen. Crime and violence is part of human nature this is why I believe that by trying to resist to that and by trying to overcome our fears that are natural what we really do is that we resist to our most primitive and instictive urges.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I find interesting the fact that you consider yourself so mature that you lecture others on it especially when you seem that you haven't decided yet if murder is an acceptable practice or not.


Hasn't he? I have - I've just decided it's a little more acceptable than you have. :)

Here's an interesting note, Cleopatra. I admire you for your principles, even if I think I disagree with them. But I'm also fairly certain that were I actually in a situation like the one that Mercutio described, where my moral code calls for me to kick some ass, I would react exactly as he did.

If I were you, it would be a personal success and demonstration of the sort that Socrates made (though not the degree).

But as I am me, the very same action would come of cowardice and be a personal failure. I would probably demonstrate I am weak-willed and floppy-minded.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by scribble
Here's an interesting note, Cleopatra. I admire you for your principles, even if I think I disagree with them. But I'm also fairly certain that were I actually in a situation like the one that Mercutio described, where my moral code calls for me to kick some ass, I would react exactly as he did. I have never been in the position to murder somebody, but I have been in the position I could have lied in the authorities and cheated on somebody I was related to. I already knew that I was against both but when it came to the second case (cheating) I decided not to violate my principles NOT out of morality but I would be terribly ashamed of myself if I chose to cheat instead of having the courage to resolve the issue in a different way.Not very convenient but ....

Also, I don't know if you remember the discussion we had in the summer about gun control. There I said that although I live in a remote area and sometimes I am scarred I refuse to buy a gun. If I were you, it would be a personal success and demonstration of the sort that Socrates made (though not the degree). I wish that we didn't have to make such choices in life and I wish I won't have to make such a choice myself. In another thread I have said that what scarres me most is to spend time in prison.Well, I would rather go to prison than change my political ideas by force. I think that everybody in this forum would do the same thing.But as I am me, the very same action would come of cowardice and be a personal failure. I would probably demonstrate I am weak-willed and floppy-minded. I have realized that in life and in history the greatest heroic deeds belong to people none-even themselves-believed that they were capable of acting like that. That's why the story of Oscar Schidler is one of my favorites. :)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No this is what you say by dismissing my principles and by destorting them with renaming them.

No, I never said your decisions are light-headed. I just said it is easier to decide when you know beforehand what you will decide. You accuse me of saying something I didn't say because you are confused you're losing this battle :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have never said that is easy to buy shoes especially if you are a woman or if you escort a woman who wants to buy shoes.

No comment.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I find interesting the fact that you consider yourself so mature that you lecture others on it especially when you seem that you haven't decided yet if murder is an acceptable practice or not.

This is getting very extreme and it will make me stop this particular conversation unless you apologize. I have never said or insinuated anything like this.

Do you understand the difference between "principles" and "moral values" ?

The fact that I detest murder doesn't mean that I have to embroider it on my forehead in order to remember it.

And I never talked about myself, BTW.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Your opinion is respected I suggest you stay away from insecure people, especially when they remind to you how difficult it is to buy shoes

Yeah, well...never mind. No comment again.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Now you blame me for replying to your questions? Now. I admit that I have to think if I should have replied to your posts or I should have ignored them.

I didn't "blame" you of anything, and perhaps it would be a good idea to stop replying to my posts if you feel attacked by my arguments.

Finally I invite anyone to please express their opinion on whether:

1) I have said that Cleopatra makes light-headed decisions
2) I have blamed her for replying to my questions
3) I have explicitly or implicitly stated that I haven't decided whether murder is an acceptable practice.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco
No, I never said your decisions are light-headed. I just said it is easier to decide when you know beforehand what you will decide. You accuse me of saying something I didn't say because you are confused you're losing this battle :)
I didn't say that you said that. Please read again what I said and no, you are wrong, losing a battle would be nice for a change. :)

This is getting very extreme and it will make me stop this particular conversation unless you apologize. I have never said or insinuated anything like this.

I expect the previous post to be the last addressing me then because I do not intend to apologize.Do you understand the difference between "principles" and "moral values" ?What makes you say that I dodn'tThe fact that I detest murder doesn't mean that I have to embroider it on my forehead in order to remember it. Then don't! I didn't "blame" you of anything, and perhaps it would be a good idea to stop replying to my posts if you feel attacked by my arguments. Please read my posts well before replying. I never said that you attacked me. I don't think that you are in the position to do anything that it would make me feel threatened.Because you are polite I mean( I clarify because I detect a tendancy from your part to misinterpret my posts)

Finally I invite anyone to please express their opinion on whether:

1) I have said that Cleopatra makes light-headed decisions
2) I have blamed her for replying to my questions
3) I have explicitly or implicitly stated that I haven't decided whether murder is an acceptable practice.

Uh-hoh! Need help? LOL You can hire me to defend your views if you wish, I think that I can do a better job than you do.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


But yet this is what you did. This is not our discussion here, this might be the topic of another thread.
I think that most people miss the point of those questions. Some times those who pose them do not know the nature of such debates either. I have noticed this and this is why I avoid such discussions and I am sorry I participated in this one because once the author didn't like the replies he re-phrased his question.What you do now is to introduce another topic in the discussion, it is like you have not decided yet and you want for clarifications in order to decide.If El Greco agree his topic do be derailed I will reply.

EdipisReks the non-existence of grey areas is the only thing I am certain about in this life but this is another topic.

Fair enough.

:)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I didn't say that you said that. Please read again what I said and no, you are wrong, losing a battle would be nice for a change. :)
Actually you're losing badly, of course that's probably because your position is indefensible. Avoiding killing people whenever possible is all very good, but sometimes there aren't any alternatives or the alternatives are so risky that's it's just not worth the risk. Especially if the person you would be killing is (or is going to be) a mass murderer. I would personally be reluctant to kill Hitler, but that's only because I'd be afraid of changing history, not because I'd be willing to risk 30-50 million lives for some high-minded moral principles.

Edited to add this quote from Randfans sig line:
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stuart Mill

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Actually you're losing badly, of course that's probably because your position is indefensible.

And yet you stand in line with those that have just rejected my arguments( obviously out of their princples) but they haven't refuted them. I have pointed a couple of things to Danish Dynamite and he hasn't replied yet. You are kindly asked to give a try and show me where do I stand wrong.Also could you please exlpain me why dictators try to intimidate the members of Amnesty Internation and they don't ignore them instead? According to the majority's reasoning. Member of Amnesty International are a naive group of people who think that they can fix the world by reporting violations of human rights and by embarassing dictators in the international community.Avoiding killing people whenever possible is all very good, but sometimes there aren't any alternatives or the alternatives are so risky that's it's just not worth the risk. Could you be more specific? Especially if the person you would be killing is (or is going to be) a mass murderer. I would personally be reluctant to kill Hitler, but that's only because I'd be afraid of changing history, not because I'd be willing to risk 30-50 million lives for some high-minded moral principles.So, do you believe that by killing Hitler you would resolve the problem? Do you believe that dictators commit their attrocities alone and that there no structures in societies that encourage them to act like that. If I understood you well, if you could go back in time, instead of trying to oppose to the creationg of Hitlerism you would just pull a trigger?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


And yet you stand in line with those that have just rejected my arguments( obviously out of their princples) but they haven't refuted them. I have pointed a couple of things to Danish Dynamite and he hasn't replied yet. You are kindly asked to give a try and show me where do I stand wrong.Also could you please exlpain me why dictators try to intimidate the members of Amnesty Internation and they don't ignore them instead? According to the majority's reasoning. Member of Amnesty International are a naive group of people who think that they can fix the world by reporting violations of human rights and by embarassing dictators in the international community.
That is a straw man, I have no objection to Amnesty International, I think they're a splendid group and does good work. In fact I'm a member, I just don't think they or similar groups can solve all problems. As for why they have an effect they can mobilize public opinion, and while public opinion by itself obviously means nothing to dictators it can cause trade embargoes, diplomatic actions of various sorts and perhaps even their eventual trial.
Originally posted by Cleopatra

Could you be more specific?
Well the example with the terrorist who are about to blow up a church springs to mind. In that hypothetical example you're prepared to risk the lives of innocent people, because of your precious principles.
Originally posted by Cleopatra

So, do you believe that by killing Hitler you would resolve the problem? Do you believe that dictators commit their attrocities alone and that there no structures in societies that encourage them to act like that. If I understood you well, if you could go back in time, instead of trying to oppose to the creationg of Hitlerism you would just pull a trigger?
Another straw man, If you read my post you'd see that I'd be reluctant to kill Hitler, because I don't know how the world would turn out if I did. Also even if I did kill Hitler that doesn't mean I could also employ more peaceful means to fight German nationalism and anti-Semitism. You're ruling out a tool to stopping World War 2 and The Holocaust by refusing to use assassinations even against mass murderers. I on the other hand would be prepared to use any means at my disposal, as long as it did not cause more harm than good.

[roger]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If I understood you well, if you could go back in time, instead of trying to oppose to the creationg of Hitlerism you would just pull a trigger? If I understand El Greco's scenerio correctly, you are not being offered that option.

In this scenerio, you only have 2 options. Push the button, or not. Nothing else. No laws, no protesting, no changing public opinion, no trials, nothing. Just push the button. Or not.

Let's give the odds of success (pushing the button stops the holocaust and WWII) at, oh, 1%. If 50million people died, then the cost benefit ratio of pushing the button is

1 death: 50m * 1%

or

1 death : 500,000 deaths.

Yup, that's a cold analysis, but it is exactly what triage doctors do every single day. With limited resources, they try to save person A, but leave person B to die (or at least fend for themselves). Sometimes we need to make decisions, with imperfect knowledge, with lethal consequences. I hate it too, but that is just how the world is arranged.

So I view this scenerio as one of triage, not how to best effect societal change.

Given the above, I push the button.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by roger
If I understand El Greco's scenerio correctly, you are not being offered that option.

In this scenerio, you only have 2 options. Push the button, or not. Nothing else. No laws, no protesting, no changing public opinion, no trials, nothing. Just push the button. Or not.

Let's give the odds of success (pushing the button stops the holocaust and WWII) at, oh, 1%. If 50million people died, then the cost benefit ratio of pushing the button is

1 death: 50m * 1%

or

1 death : 500,000 deaths.

Yup, that's a cold analysis, but it is exactly what triage doctors do every single day. With limited resources, they try to save person A, but leave person B to die (or at least fend for themselves). Sometimes we need to make decisions, with imperfect knowledge, with lethal consequences. I hate it too, but that is just how the world is arranged.

So I view this scenerio as one of triage, not how to best effect societal change.

Given the above, I push the button.
Plus personally I'd assign much lower value to Hitlers life than just about anybody elses.

[sorgoth]

The more posts I read, the less sure I am...

Roger makes some good points... However, I worry what direction the war could have taken if there was someone more intelligent than Hitler at the lead.

I really don't know.

[Ladewig]

If I've learned anything at all from "Star Trek" it's that timelines are very, very complicated things.


There were so many piss poor decisions he [Hitler] made that hindred the war movement that it kind of makes sense.

Agreeing not to attack Russia and then attacking Russia, trying to grab their oilfields (immense strategic value) and then spreading the forces too thin by trying to grab Moscow (immense pride value), insisting that D-Day would occur at Calais despite all the reports of soldiers landing in Normandy, expecting the Italians to cover his southern flank. Hitler's replacement might have caused a much longer and more destructive war.

I don't like the push the button scenario - murder is a messy and gruesome business. But I will consider a scenario where you go back in time and acquire a revolver. You can kill Hitler, but will be arrested and tried for murder and executed. I think I would pull the trigger. After all, if my timeline had a machine to go back and remove that much suffering, the odds are that the new timeline could reduce any greater suffering that I might create.


__________________-

I do like the "Twilight Zone" episode where the people going back in time cannot physically manfest themselves, but they can holographically project themselves. They convince the rising dictator that his plane is going to crash and he should jump out the door so that the folks from the future can catch him as he falls. They don't.

___________________

Oh, yeah, the other thing I learned from "Star Trek" is that Vulcans in spandex are hot.

[Vorticity]

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but what about the temporal paradox angle?

OK, so Hitler precipitates WW2, slaughters countless millions, and is remembered today as a monster.

If I go back in time and kill him before he attains any power, he won't do all those things, and won't be remembered by history at all, as a monster or otherwise. Therefore, it wouldn't occur to me to go back and kill Hitler, because nobody will have heard of Hitler (or I won't have been born, perhaps). But then if I don't kill him, he'll go on to slaughter countless millions, and be remembered as... etc... etc.

Who knows how the universe would behave under such a paradox? What if it caused the universe to simply wink out of existence? Doesn't seem likely, but is it worth the risk?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Vorticity
I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but what about the temporal paradox angle?

OK, so Hitler precipitates WW2, slaughters countless millions, and is remembered today as a monster.

If I go back in time and kill him before he attains any power, he won't do all those things, and won't be remembered by history at all, as a monster or otherwise. Therefore, it wouldn't occur to me to go back and kill Hitler, because nobody will have heard of Hitler (or I won't have been born, perhaps). But then if I don't kill him, he'll go on to slaughter countless millions, and be remembered as... etc... etc.

Who knows how the universe would behave under such a paradox? What if it caused the universe to simply wink out of existence? Doesn't seem likely, but is it worth the risk?
I don't think there really is a paradox according to modern quantum mechanics. I didn't really understand it when I heard it the first time and it's some time ago, but as far as I remember the old future continuous to exist and a new one simply branches or something like that.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Because of my principles I do not have moral dilemmasBut how did you decide on your principles in the first place? Why did you pick the principles that you did, instead of some other principles?

One answer you could give is basically, "Those are my principles. They just feel right to me, and that's it." This might be true, but obviously it won't be very effective in convincing anyone else to adopt your principles who doesn't already agree with you.

Or you could try to give reasons for your principles. For example, if one of your principles is an opposition to violence, you could say, "My goal is a peaceful world, and I believe that negotiation, never violence, is the most effective way to achieve that goal." But now your opposition to violence has been demoted from being a fundamental principle to being a mere means to an end. And, as such, it is no longer absolute, because there remains always the possibility that you are mistaken about the connection between it and your ultimate goal: perhaps, in some situation that you haven't considered, a bit of short-term violence is in fact more effective than negotiation in achieving that goal.

I think this is what El Greco meant when he said, about "watching you to try and justify your 'principles' ",<blockquote>From the moment you enter the "rationalization of principles" process, you are actually debating about something that is de facto undebatable.</blockquote>Fundamental principles cannot be justified; otherwise, they wouldn't be fundamental.

[Outcast]

I would not kill Hitler. Let say, what if Hitler had never been born, instead of just killing him off. Without Hitler, WWII would not have happened as we know it. Fifty-five million people died in WWII. Think what our population would be like today if these people had lived.

Among those killed were 20-25 million Russians. Without WWII, I believe it would have been only a matter of time before Stalin would have attacked Germany as a payback for WW I. It must be remembered that we were only fighting 1/3 of the German Army in WWII. The other 2/3 were tied down on the Eastern Front by Russia. Without Germany, I’m not sure if we could have defeated Russia in Europe.

Some have mentioned a different Hitler starting WWII. That could even be worse. Hitler’s greatest weakest was his racism. He either drove out of the country or sent to the gas chambers Germany’s finest minds. His racism caused him to see the Russians as subhuman and inferior. This let to the breaking of the Nonaggression Pact the invasion of Russia.

What if Einstein along with many other Jews had stayed in German and help build the atomic bomb? What if so many fine minds had gone to work in the Military-Industrial Complex instead of going to the ovens? What if we had never gotten the German scientists that we did at the end of WWII. What if we Europe felt the full force of the German war machine instead of just 1/3? What if that German war machine was fed by Russian industry and resources? What if Russian decided to realize their age old dream of warm weather ports and drive south through Central Asia to the Indian Ocean?

To rephrase an old English proverb “ Better the Hitler you know than the Hitler you don't know.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Outcast
I would not kill Hitler.

Would you also remain inactive in the terrorist case, mentioned on top of the 2nd page ? If not, what is the fundamental difference between Hitler and the terrorists ?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by El Greco
Would you also remain inactive in the terrorist case, mentioned on top of the 2nd page ? If not, what is the fundamental difference between Hitler and the terrorists ?

I am one who said I wouldn't kill Hitler. The terrorist situation is just as easy to answer. I would kill them.

The difference? We know that the human race survived Hitler. As has been pointed out, history is too complex to be sure of a better result if Hitler was removed from the equation. There are too many potential scenarios resulting in the destruction or enslavement of most of the human race to seriously consider rolling the dice of history and hoping for a better result.

The terrorist situation is occurring in the present. We have no way of knowing how the instant event is going to affect history. We only know that hundreds of lives are at stake today. There is no "preserving history" argument against killing the terrorists because the history hasn't happened yet. This isn't remotely similar to the decision to kill Hitler.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by El Greco
Would you also remain inactive in the terrorist case, mentioned on top of the 2nd page ? If not, what is the fundamental difference between Hitler and the terrorists ? Originally posted by El Greco
Anyway, I'll also try to avoid a scenario with war. Let's just say that you happen to overhear a conversation of terrorists who are about to set off explosives and blow a church with hundreds of people inside. Let's just also say that the explosion is going to happen really soon and there is no other way of preventing it other than killing the terrorists, which you could do pretty easily with your gun. Would you kill them ? I agree with Outcast on Hitler. I wouldn't even if I could.

The terrorist example is smaller, more personal, and imminent. I would try to take them out.

The real difference between the two scenarios is: the present moment. From this perspective I don't know what the future holds. The church being bombed might, in fact, hold the next Hitler, but if I don't know that I must act to preserve the innocent over the murderers that seek to destroy society and bring chaos.

The world will see me as the murderer in the situation and put me to death for perhaps a hate crime. My defense is that I overheard a conversation so I came in blasting. Without any bomb making materials found as evidence in support of my story I am as guilty as any other mass murderer.

Still, I'd be able to go to my death with my head held high rather than live out my life in shame.

Looks like Ipecac beat me to the post

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Atlas
The real difference between the two scenarios is: the present moment. From this perspective I don't know what the future holds.
That is the funny thing, If you know what the future holds, and you know that it is a bad thing, why you don't change it.
In the scenario of the present moment, you have much less information to make a wise decision, and yet it is easier to make this decision and kill, than to make the decision in the situation where you have more than enough information.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
That is the funny thing, If you know what the future holds, and you know that it is a bad thing, why you don't change it.
In the scenario of the present moment, you have much less information to make a wise decision, and yet it is easier to make this decision and kill, than to make the decision in the situation where you have more than enough information.

The scale is different. Killing Hitler is meddling with events on a very large scale. The end result of the original timeline, sixty years later, is that humanity (and freedom to a large desgree) survived. Messing with something that has the possibility of ending badly and resulting in maybe more death and destruction isn't a wise choice.

The terrorist example doesn't have such far reaching implications. And to not act because it will affect the future is to withdraw from all human action.

A closer analogy to killing Hitler might be the 9/11 attacks. If you could go back in time and stop them, would you? It seems easy to say "yes", but the result could have been a lack of vigilance post-9/11 resulting in a nuclear bomb being smuggled into New York and detonated in 2003.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
That is the funny thing, If you know what the future holds, and you know that it is a bad thing, why you don't change it. It is a funny thing. I think my answer depends a lot on how much future I know. Europe today seems like much less of a threat to humanity than it did in the first half of the last century. Same with Japan. I can't predict though whether my actions would result in a brighter or darker future along the lines of Ipecac's argument.
In the scenario of the present moment, you have much less information to make a wise decision, and yet it is easier to make this decision and kill, than to make the decision in the situation where you have more than enough information. In every present moment we are faced with the choice of whether to engage the moment in action or non-action. This is qualitatively different than choosing to go back in time to engage a moment where one future outcome is known to be undesirable.

In the present moment we are guided by our "inner light" that pierces that veil of the future. That inner light seems to choose life, light, and continued struggle for achievement over death, destruction and chaos. Terrorists weigh things differently. We both act for a vision of the future.

I like to think that the people of Afghanistan were liberated from a fierce oppression. But if I knew that Mohammed Atta was planning to hijack a plane tomorrow I would act to head that off. Without his attack on the twin towers the people of Afghanistan would still live under the heavy boot of the Taliban.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Ipecac

A closer analogy to killing Hitler might be the 9/11 attacks. If you could go back in time and stop them, would you? It seems easy to say "yes", but the result could have been a lack of vigilance post-9/11 resulting in a nuclear bomb being smuggled into New York and detonated in 2003.
Ehmm. I don't think Al qaida has a nuclear bomb.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Ehmm. I don't think Al qaida has a nuclear bomb. It is an open question. A russian general is on record saying that no one knows where 84 suitcase bombs from the soviet era disappeared to. And certain al Queda people have made claims that they have some. They may see the US as the first best choice for using them and have had trouble smuggling them in.

I'll see if I can find a reference for the al Queda threat.

Here's one. (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1074082/posts)

This one has more to say. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37013)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Ehmm. I don't think Al qaida has a nuclear bomb.

I certainly hope not. But without the events of 9/11, safe in Taliban Afghanistan, maybe they would have one by now. Who can know?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I was raised a pacifist, but always wondered whether, if it really came down to it and I was being attacked, might I hurt someone else to defend myself? I conceded that I probably would--it just seemed to make sense. Then, the opportunity arose to empirically test the question :D. In other words, I got mugged (well, beaten, but they were not interested in money). I found myself thinking, while being punched, that I could easily take these guys if I wanted to. Strangely, though, I did not want to; I found myself thinking that I could not, at this moment, stop them from being violent, but I could stop myself from being violent. I had no regrets at all for my actions, even as I had my jaw x-rayed, even as I ate lunch through a straw for a couple of weeks. (For the record, I did press charges, and they plea-bargained).

But this is slightly different, with all due respect. Did you feel at any point in danger for your life? Did you fear that they would go so far as to kill you, rather than just physically rough you up. If not you may well have just weighed the pro's and con's and said, this is just a beating, and if I resist, it could end up worse for me. I think the distinction here is to know beyond a doubt they, or you will die. That that is the intent of the perpetrator.

In the Hitler example I would do as many others have suggested and not kill him for the uncertainty that by killing him things would be better/worse. Hitler certainly did make some huge tactical blunders that he should have left to his military advisors in the wehrmacht, and so certainly had a hand in shortening the length of the war. The other point is that our vigilance in seeking out those that commit ethnic cleansing, that commit war crimes was in such a large part defined by the experiences of WWII. Would we have learned such a painful lesson if not for WWII? Its hard to say. Some would say that its easy for me to make this decision because of where and when I live, and this is true. But its just as true that living where and when I do, it gives me perhaps a more objective, non-emotional response to just what was valuable in what we learned about our own humanity as a result. And moreso, what we have since tried to do about it.

In the terrorist example as laid out by El Greco where my family is in danger and I can try to stop them, then I'd like to say I would. I would WANT to act, but circumstances are horrible things to predict and I might freeze up when I most wanted to act, happens to everyone, and often to those that would least expect it. I suppose this would also count for the Hitler scenario. I know what I would want to do, but whether circumstances would make me hesitate, or contradict myself, no one can say for sure.

Posted by Cleopatra
According to the majority's reasoning. Member of Amnesty International are a naive group of people who think that they can fix the world by reporting violations of human rights and by embarassing dictators in the international community.

This is the problem I think of looking at things in a black and white sense. Its not naive that they do what they do. Obviously they have made changes, they have helped, and do help people. But to think that their model of conflict resolution will always work for every scenario I think is naive. I also don't think its true that all dictators are scared into inaction by the presence of Amnesty International. While this is not necessarily my area of expertise I'm positive there are examples of dictators and regimes carrying out their agenda's regardless of international pressure and sanctions. Somalia comes to mind. That pressure only counts if it has the potential to take away something those dictators value so much they fear to lose it. On smaller scale conflicts, these people often are of the opinion that they have nothing to lose, and so that pressure can do little to disuade them from action.

In my opinion still, violence and civilized negotiation are many times even today inexplicably tied to one another. I agree, negotiation would tend to be long term in its scope and success, while violence is very much short term. As long as those employing these ideas above remember that, I think things would be fine. However that is often not the case. Sometimes it takes violence to get people to see the value of trying to sit down and come up with a longer term solution. You can choose to be on the non-violent side of that equation. Just realize that you only have that luxury because there are those in this world that will use violence when called for.

[El Greco]

No matter how noble and how pacifist you are, it all depends on who you have to face. There are people who behave worse than wild animals. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot make them think logically. You cannot protect your people in a peaceful way when you have to deal with such people.

It is true that humanity has come a long way from the days when war was the preferred way of resolving conflicts. And I also believe that we will keep moving toward that direction. There will come a day when any kind of murder will be as unusual as cannibalism is today.

But when I see how some people seem to enjoy violence, I feel I have to protect myself from them. And when some people point a gun at society, society cannot answer with flowers because it will suffer serious damage.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hmm...just found this thread. It always interests me when people claim that they know what they would do in a given situation such as this. Oddly enough, I come out of it with the most respect for those people who do not know what they would do in the extremely personal situation, and those who could not see themselves as committing murder in the more remote situation (like the original question). I guess that puts me squarely in favor of Cleopatra's stance on this.

I was raised a pacifist, but always wondered whether, if it really came down to it and I was being attacked, might I hurt someone else to defend myself? I conceded that I probably would--it just seemed to make sense. Then, the opportunity arose to empirically test the question :D. In other words, I got mugged (well, beaten, but they were not interested in money). I found myself thinking, while being punched, that I could easily take these guys if I wanted to. Strangely, though, I did not want to; I found myself thinking that I could not, at this moment, stop them from being violent, but I could stop myself from being violent. I had no regrets at all for my actions, even as I had my jaw x-rayed, even as I ate lunch through a straw for a couple of weeks. (For the record, I did press charges, and they plea-bargained).

My point is (I know it is here somewhere), I did not know in advance what I would do. I actually had guessed wrong--I thought I would throw principle away, and I did not. What if the same thing happened tomorrow? Or what if I am in the position some of you have hypothetically placed Cleopatra in? Would I act to save my family? The only honest answer I can give is "I do not know."


Man, you have got to get in touch with your inner monkey. You're right that in such an extreme example, going back in time and all, no one really knows what they'd do.
In the case of being attacked by two men tomorrow, I know exactly what I'd do. Win, lose, or draw. When I wake up in the grass with a black eye, a busted lip and no wallet, at least I'd know I tried.
It's the principal of the thing.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Ipecac


The scale is different. Killing Hitler is meddling with events on a very large scale. The end result of the original timeline, sixty years later, is that humanity (and freedom to a large desgree) survived. Messing with something that has the possibility of ending badly and resulting in maybe more death and destruction isn't a wise choice.


Scale is irrelevant when it comes to impact. When Cortez marched into Mexico, one man carried smallpox. 3,500,000 Aztecs died in the next 2 years. Without that one smallpox carrier Cortez would not have been able to defeat such a superior number of Aztecs. So one man alone was responsible the conquest of the New World.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Outcast

Scale is irrelevant when it comes to impact. When Cortez marched into Mexico, one man carried smallpox. 3,500,000 Aztecs died in the next 2 years. Without that one smallpox carrier Cortez would not have been able to defeat such a superior number of Aztecs. So one man alone was responsible the conquest of the New World.

Your example is a large scale event. I'm not talking about scale in terms of number of people involved. I'm talking about scale in terms of impact. Large impact events are more dangerous to change than small impact events. Of course, there's always the caveat that we never know when a small change could lead to a large impact. That's why messing with time would be foolhardy.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Ipecac


The scale is different. Killing Hitler is meddling with events on a very large scale. The end result of the original timeline, sixty years later, is that humanity (and freedom to a large desgree) survived. Messing with something that has the possibility of ending badly and resulting in maybe more death and destruction isn't a wise choice.

The terrorist example doesn't have such far reaching implications. And to not act because it will affect the future is to withdraw from all human action.

A closer analogy to killing Hitler might be the 9/11 attacks. If you could go back in time and stop them, would you? It seems easy to say "yes", but the result could have been a lack of vigilance post-9/11 resulting in a nuclear bomb being smuggled into New York and detonated in 2003.

If Cortez's man had been hung over and missed going to sea with them, everything would have been different.

Some time in 1888 a Jewish man got his young German housekeeper pregnant. He dismissed her, happened all the time with rich men and poor young girls. I wonder if he ever knew that the seed he planted would one day send 6 million of his people to their death along with another 44 million others? When we come to a cross roads, we have no idea of what would happen if we had turned left, right, gone straight or did a u turn and gone back.

That is the problem we can't say what an impact even the smallest action can have on future events. I can think of many small insignificant events in my life that in 20/20 hindsight had a very profound impact on my life and others.

[Kopji]

I don't believe in the scenario. Killing Hitler seems like a 'false dilemma' intended to get at a deeper question about the potential need to do 'lesser evil' in order to serve a 'greater good'.

When we come to a cross roads, we have no idea of what would happen if we had turned left, right, gone straight or did a u turn and gone back.
Hitler's death would probably limit his future decisions quite a bit though. :D Hummm.... Hitler tried to make it as an artist early on. I've seen his work, so I might be able to kill him just as a favor to art lovers...

So I go back in time and murder someone in cold blood, only to find out it did not matter at all. (I've been known to watch an episode or two of Star Trek too...) How would we know that given the dynamics of 1920's & 30's society, any number of people could easily serve as a Hitler? We don't, so there is no evidence that killing Hitler would change anything but me (I am now a cold blooded killer).

I watched 'The Fog of War' last week, an interesting documentary that asks similar questions. Recommended.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Outcast
That is the problem we can't say what an impact even the smallest action can have on future events. I can think of many small insignificant events in my life that in 20/20 hindsight had a very profound impact on my life and others.

I don't think we disagree here. My point is that because we couldn't know for sure that killing Hitler would result in a better future, it would be ill-advised to do so.

[sackett]

I've pretty frequently ruminated about travelling back in time with a rifle and a full bandolier. Of course my first thought was to stop off ca. 1928 and put a window in Master Hitler. Many people have wished they could do that.

But thinking further, I realized that it might be a good idea to go farther back, say to 1869 or so, and switch off Bismarck; without him, there'd be no modern Prussia, and no Germany, and hence nothing for the extreme nationalists to build on.

Well . . . How about a little trip back to 1790 or so, to drop Napoleon? That would prevent a tremendous amount of suffering in Europe, and, more importantly, leave the German states still contentedly unorganized. Come to that, a lot of European nationalism would never have emerged without the stimulous of the Napoleonic Wars.

Oops. Can't leave all those appalling Capets to ruin France and provoke the Revolution, which gave Nappy his big chance. Blam, blam, blam! Now I'm running out of ammo, and I still haven't dealt with the Hapsburgs; I mustn't leave the Austro-Hungarian Empire ripening like that.

And how about all those popes? Jeeze, I better go back to good old 2004 and stock up on hollowpoints!

Just see all the trouble a simple time machine can cause?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Kerberos

That is a straw man, I have no objection to Amnesty International, I think they're a splendid group and does good work. In fact I'm a member, I just don't think they or similar groups can solve all problems. As for why they have an effect they can mobilize public opinion, and while public opinion by itself obviously means nothing to dictators it can cause trade embargoes, diplomatic actions of various sorts and perhaps even their eventual trial.

No it is not a strawman because I didn't attribute to you claims that you haven't made, please read again before replying. You say that you are a member of Amnesty Internation, in that case you know that this kind of organizations do not claim that they can solve all the problems but they fight for problems of a specific nature that have to do with abuse of political power and violations of human rights. They fight against dictators, among other things. If you are a member of Amnesty International and you believe that their action means nothing to dictators and that the solution is to assassinate them maybe you should reconsider your being a member of such an organization.

Well the example with the terrorist who are about to blow up a church springs to mind. I wonder why since it wasn't our subject at least in the original post because then the author changed his mind a couple of times. In that hypothetical example you're prepared to risk the lives of innocent people, because of your precious principles. Are you mocking my principles? No I didn't replied to the second and third questions El Greco posed, I replied to the opening post and I refuded to reply to the revised scenarios he posted later. But please reply to me, in the quote above do you refer to my principles ironically?

Another straw man, If you read my post you'd see that I'd be reluctant to kill Hitler, because I don't know how the world would turn out if I did. Also even if I did kill Hitler that doesn't mean I could also employ more peaceful means to fight German nationalism and anti-Semitism. You're ruling out a tool to stopping World War 2 and The Holocaust by refusing to use assassinations even against mass murderers. I on the other hand would be prepared to use any means at my disposal, as long as it did not cause more harm than good.

I think that you don't know what strawman means. Again I haven't attributed to you claims you haven't made, I asked for a clarification hence the question mark.Could you please read my posts before responding to them? Also, maybe you don't know very well the History of WWII otherwise I cannot explain why you think that the murder of Hitler could have prevented the Holocaust. In which point of the War Hitler's murder would have prevented the Holocaust?

EDITED TO ADD: I have a question. Do you approve of the assassination of Yessin by the Israeli Army?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No I didn't replied to the second and third questions El Greco posed, I replied to the opening post and I refuded to reply to the revised scenarios he posted later.

No, you did not refuse to reply. This is your reply to my "revised scenario". It's right there on the 2nd page:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Now I got it. No I would not kill them. I am against murder and nothing would make me change my mind.

[Cleopatra]

Some intellectual honesty wouldn't harm you El Greco.

Please re-post the whole of the quote.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Some intellectual honesty wouldn't harm you El Greco.

Right back at you. Is it intellectual honesty to say that you didn't answer ? What is the quote below if not an answer ?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Please re-post the whole of the quote.

Here it is, for people to judge whether the part I chose to post is out of context.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Now I got it. No I would not kill them. I am against murder and nothing would make me change my mind. I would try to stop them but I wouldn't kill them. The only way for me to kill somebody is while trying to protect a child or an elder person but this doesn't count in this discussion because it is considered defense.

It's not that I am a hero or a nice person.It's because I believe that consistency is important in life especially when you try to fight issues using legal ways. You cannot stop others doing what you consider wrong by using their means.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by 69dodge
But how did you decide on your principles in the first place? Why did you pick the principles that you did, instead of some other principles?This is not our topic of course but I will reply. I picked my principles from the social environment I grew up and of course my family. After I started working I rejected some, I kept many and I picked a few more. I picked my principles the same way every person does.One answer you could give is basically, "Those are my principles. They just feel right to me, and that's it." This might be true, but obviously it won't be very effective in convincing anyone else to adopt your principles who doesn't already agree with you. Did you read all my posts, because this is what I have been doing in this thread. Justifying why I wouldn't murder Hitler.
I think this is what El Greco meant when he said, about "watching you to try and justify your 'principles' ",<blockquote>From the moment you enter the "rationalization of principles" process, you are actually debating about something that is de facto undebatable.</blockquote>Fundamental principles cannot be justified; otherwise, they wouldn't be fundamental. Errrr ... by entering to a discussion in a debate forum about principles I have or I do not have doesn't mean that I negotiate them, especially with somebody like El Grecowho believes in the political benefits of murder. But I promise to consider to ignore his posts from now on. :)

I have a question. Do you agree with the assassination of Yassin by the Israeli Army?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
especially with somebody like El Grecowho believes in the political benefits of murder.

Saved for posterity.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco
Right back at you. Is it intellectual honesty to say that you didn't answer ? What is the quote below if not an answer ?

I didn't reply to the question El Greco but to your clarificatiion regarding Hilter( bold face mine): originally posted by El GrecoOk, I'll try to rephrase a question with the same meaning as my original one, and without involving any formal war. Basically the idea was whether you would murder someone that you know beyond any doubt that he is going to kill a great number of innocent people. I used the "back to time" example of Hitler so that we can be sure about the results of our inactivity, but since many people say things could go the same or even worse, I clarified with the firing squad example. For me it doesn't make any difference since even with the firing squad example we can't know whether our intervence will be for the better or the worse. For example, a German officer might get pissed off that the execution failed and order the execution of an even greater number of people.

For the Nth time I ask you to read the posts before hitting the reply button.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I didn't reply to the question El Greco but to your clarificatiion regarding Hilter( bold face mine):

For the Nth time I ask you to read the posts before hitting the reply button.

So, you maintain that you didn't reply to that question. And that "I believe in the political benefits of murder".

You probably will not believe me, but I am truly and deeply disappointed :(

Anyway, the posts are here for everybody to see...

[Cleopatra]

Oh of course I believe that you are disappointed at me and you have the slightest of respect about me. I realized it long before you did, when you ridiculed my principles just because you didn't agree with me or you didn't understand why a person might have any principles.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Brian

Man, you have got to get in touch with your inner monkey. You're right that in such an extreme example, going back in time and all, no one really knows what they'd do.
In the case of being attacked by two men tomorrow, I know exactly what I'd do. Win, lose, or draw. When I wake up in the grass with a black eye, a busted lip and no wallet, at least I'd know I tried.
It's the principal of the thing. My point was essentially the first highlighted sentence above...although why you qualify it with the "going back in time" bit, I do not know. Some of us know ourselves well, some of us do not. I would have agreed with your second paragraph...right up to the point when it happened to me. Suddenly, I knew that I was one of the folks who do not know themselves well. I know myself better now; I know that I do not know. I sincerely hope that you never have to find out whether you truly know yourself in this.


edited for different colors

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I sincerely hope that you never have to find out whether you truly know yourself in this.


edited for different colors

I've had my ass kicked. Not all the blood was mine though.:)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Brian


I've had my ass kicked. Not all the blood was mine though.:) Ah, see, this is quite different from my situation--you know because you have been there. My beliefs were untested. Now the question is...in the thread's topic, we are essentially contemplating cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Of an as-yet innocent person. I'm guessing this is a situation you have notyet been in.:D Perhaps, just perhaps, my point stands...

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
in the thread's topic, we are essentially contemplating cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Of an as-yet innocent person. I'm guessing this is a situation you have notyet been in.:D Perhaps, just perhaps, my point stands...
Well, there was that little Whitechapel thing a few years back. Who knows how many would have died of smallpox if I hadn't stepped in.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No it is not a strawman because I didn't attribute to you claims that you haven't made, please read again before replying. You say that you are a member of Amnesty Internation, in that case you know that this kind of organizations do not claim that they can solve all the problems but they fight for problems of a specific nature that have to do with abuse of political power and violations of human rights. They fight against dictators, among other things. If you are a member of Amnesty International and you believe that their action means nothing to dictators and that the solution is to assassinate them maybe you should reconsider your being a member of such an organization.
You didn't atribute claim to me I hadn't made, but you atributed claims to "the majority" they hadn't made.

"According to the majority's reasoning. Member of Amnesty International are a naive group of people who think that they can fix the world by reporting violations of human rights and by embarassing dictators in the international community. "

Can you show where anybody, much less the majority made such a claim, if you can't then it's a straw man.

Also why do you keep implying that I rule out using peaceful means, when I have clearly stated that I don not?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I wonder why since it wasn't our subject at least in the original post because then the author changed his mind a couple of times. Are you mocking my principles? No I didn't replied to the second and third questions El Greco posed, I replied to the opening post and I refuded to reply to the revised scenarios he posted later. But please reply to me, in the quote above do you refer to my principles ironically?
Yes I did mock you principles and I apologize, it was unnecessarily rude. I still find you principles as you have described them disturbing though. You claim that you refused to answer El Grecos question, but I have a great deal of difficulty reading this post in any other way than that you did answer.

Originally posted by Cleopatra

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by El Greco


Ok, I'll try to rephrase a question with the same meaning as my original one, and without involving any formal war. Basically the idea was whether you would murder someone that you know beyond any doubt that he is going to kill a great number of innocent people. I used the "back to time" example of Hitler so that we can be sure about the results of our inactivity, but since many people say things could go the same or even worse, I clarified with the firing squad example. For me it doesn't make any difference since even with the firing squad example we can't know whether our intervence will be for the better or the worse. For example, a German officer might get pissed off that the execution failed and order the execution of an even greater number of people.

Anyway, I'll also try to avoid a scenario with war. Let's just say that you happen to overhear a conversation of terrorists who are about to set off explosives and blow a church with hundreds of people inside. Let's just also say that the explosion is going to happen really soon and there is no other way of preventing it other than killing the terrorists, which you could do pretty easily with your gun. Would you kill them ? You can also think of the case where your family is in the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now I got it. No I would not kill them. I am against murder and nothing would make me change my mind. I would try to stop them but I wouldn't kill them. The only way for me to kill somebody is while trying to protect a child or an elder person but this doesn't count in this discussion because it is considered defense.

It's not that I am a hero or a nice person.It's because I believe that consistency is important in life especially when you try to fight issues using legal ways. You cannot stop others doing what you consider wrong by using their means.

[ BTW El Greco since you made a comment about principles.I have violated my principles only once so far and it was about a personal matter. I was so tortured by the moral dilemma I found myself in that there is no way for me to do it again and about any matter.

Also my principles happen to be very inconvenient for me so I don't share the sentiment of your signature.]

You specifically ruled out the possibility of killing them, who are them if not the terrorists? You did say that you would try to stop them by other means, but you ruled out one way of preserving innocent lives because your principles makes it very difficult for you to kill even mass murderers. Thereby you are as I said risking the lives of innocents because of your principles. I would not rule out killing them, but neither would I rule out non-fatal ways of dealing with the problem, so whatever way you turn it I have a better chance of preventing the terrorist attack. It is difficult to read your principles in any other way than that apparently it means more to you that you personally don't kill anybody, than that innocent peoples lives are preserved. Perhaps you don't mean that but that's how it reads.

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I think that you don't know what strawman means. Again I haven't attributed to you claims you haven't made, I asked for a clarification hence the question mark.
Having read it more carefully, yes that is indeed not a straw man though you are asking questions that I already answered, which makes it seem very much like you’re insinuating that rule out using peaceful means, just as you did in this post.
Originally posted by Cleopatra

EDITED TO ADD: I have a question. Do you approve of the assassination of Yessin by the Israeli Army?
I have no moral objections, but I'm concerned that it could lead to an escalation of the violence. So no, I don't approve of it, but not because I place high value in the life of a terrorist.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Kerberos
You didn't atribute claim to me I hadn't made, but you atributed claims to "the majority" they hadn't made. Really? And on what basis the majority in this thread has rejected my views other than that they are dangerous or naive? Have you read the replies of the people I interacted with in this thread?

Also why do you keep implying that I rule out using peaceful means, when I have clearly stated that I don not? If you don't where do you disagree with me?

Yes I did mock you principles and I apologize, it was unnecessarily rude. I still find you principles as you have described them disturbing though. Your apology is accepted although I am kind of bored of people who think that they debate when they ridicule things they do not understand fully or when they haven't even read the whole of the thread. I don't include you among those right now, I just wanted to mention it and you gave me the opportunity.
You claim that you refused to answer El Grecos question, but I have a great deal of difficulty reading this post in any other way than that you did answer. So, there is not any possibility that you and El Greco haven't understood and the only possibility is that I am lying? Perhaps you don't mean that but that's how it reads. I have explained many times especially to DD how I mean it. All you have to do is to read what I wrote.Having read it more carefully, yes that is indeed not a straw man though you are asking questions that I already answered, which makes it seem very much like you’re insinuating that rule out using peaceful means, just as you did in this post. Could you point to me a poster apart from me that clearly rejected violence and stated that there are other ways to do it? Personally I read only the posts of Mercutio and Lux Ferum that way.

I have no moral objections, Really? What makes you so sure that he has done the things IDF has accused him of. Was he trialed in a legitimate court of law, were proofs presented so that the people decide whether he was guilty of not? Don't you object the fact that somebody decided to execure somebody for crimes he was accused of having committed but never passed trough a legitimate procedure? Weren't you offended as a modern citizen by the fact that it was the Mosaic Law?
but I'm concerned that it could lead to an escalation of the violence. So no, I don't approve of it, but not because I place high value in the life of a terrorist. So, you have already trialed him in your TV room. ... Right!

[Operaider]

Why wouldn’t you kill Hitler. The only reason I could think of would be because he would become a martyr. I still think that in the long run it would save lives. Even now he is martyred by a few rejects. But they could in no way cause more harm than Hitler did. Now part of the question I’m unsure about is this. Would I be killing Hitler when he was in power, or would I be putting and end to him before he ever had the chance to so much as utter an ethnic slur? It wouldn’t change my answer either way. But I’d prefer to later for what I think are obvious reasons.

P.S. this is my first post, and i'm very interested by this forum

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Really? And on what basis the majority in this thread has rejected my views other than that they are dangerous or naive? Have you read the replies of the people I interacted with in this thread?
I have read them and they (and I) do generally state that you views are dangorous and naïve, but not because you would consider peaceful means as the first choice, but because you apparently absolutely refuse to consider non-peaceful means as a second choice, if peaceful means can't solve the problem.
Originally posted by Cleopatra

If you don't where do you disagree with me?
As I stated above because you seem to be saying that you would not use violent means, even when it's the best choice for saving innocents. Thereby your actually placing you own desire not to have blood on your personal hands, above the life of innocent people. I disagree with that.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, there is not any possibility that you and El Greco haven't understood and the only possibility is that I am lying?
Sight! That's a ridiculous rhetorical trick. You're implying that "either you're wrong or I'm lying" Whether you're lying or not isn't the issue. The issue is what you wrote. In response to El Grecos question you wrote: "Now I got it." As in I understand what you're saying. then: "No I would not kill them." Them being the terrorists, you're here saying that you would not kill the terrorists thereby answering the question. And then: "I am against murder and nothing would make me change my mind. I would try to stop them but I wouldn't kill them. " Thereby totally ruling out killing them, and putting the innocent people who would die in our hypothetical terrorist attack in greater danger, by refusing to consider one approach to preventing the attack.
This is what you did say, and what it does mean according to the common rules governing the English language. Therefore your claim that you didn’t answer the question is clearly false. I'm not you, and thus I can't know whether you're lying, or just so focused on whatever you meant that you can't see what you actually wrote. Don't try to turn this away from what you wrote, and into some kind of referendum on your character, it's dishonest. I'm not psychic and I have no other way of determining your thoughts than your posts.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have explained many times especially to DD how I mean it. All you have to do is to read what I wrote.
I have reread you posts you posts to DD, and they shed no additional light on your position. Has it occurred to you that since apparently nobody but yourself understand what you're saying, perhaps the error is in your communication?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Could you point to me a poster apart from me that clearly rejected violence and stated that there are other ways to do it? Personally I read only the posts of Mercutio and Lux Ferum that way.
No I can't that’s the entire point! We are not rejecting violence as a means for saving the lives of innocents, you apparently are.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Really? What makes you so sure that he has done the things IDF has accused him of. Was he trialed in a legitimate court of law, were proofs presented so that the people decide whether he was guilty of not? Don't you object the fact that somebody decided to execure somebody for crimes he was accused of having committed but never passed trough a legitimate procedure? Weren't you offended as a modern citizen by the fact that it was the Mosaic Law?
If it was possible, then I would of course prefer that he had been tried and convicted. I would not however reject the possibility of extra juridical executions in cases where holding trials isn't practically possible. I read your question in the context of your seeming refusal to acknowledge that peaceful means can't solve all problems. Therefore I answered it, as if you had asked whether I objected to the killing of terrorist in general. Looking back that was clearly not what you asked. My bad.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, you have already trialed him in your TV room. ... Right!
Yes, I have no real doubt that he was guilty of at least most of the things IDF accused him of. so his death brings me no great sorrow. I don’t think Stalin (or a number of other mass murderers) were ever tried either. That doesn't make me doubt that he was guilty. Similarly Yessin was the leader and founder of his organization, and I find it as hard to believe that he was innocent of the crimes committed by Hamas, as that Stalin was innocent of those committed by the Soviets.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by sackett
I've pretty frequently ruminated about travelling back in time with a rifle and a full bandolier. Of course my first thought was to stop off ca. 1928 and put a window in Master Hitler. Many people have wished they could do that.

But thinking further, I realized that it might be a good idea to go farther back, say to 1869 or so, and switch off Bismarck; without him, there'd be no modern Prussia, and no Germany, and hence nothing for the extreme nationalists to build on.

Well . . . How about a little trip back to 1790 or so, to drop Napoleon? That would prevent a tremendous amount of suffering in Europe, and, more importantly, leave the German states still contentedly unorganized. Come to that, a lot of European nationalism would never have emerged without the stimulous of the Napoleonic Wars.

Oops. Can't leave all those appalling Capets to ruin France and provoke the Revolution, which gave Nappy his big chance. Blam, blam, blam! Now I'm running out of ammo, and I still haven't dealt with the Hapsburgs; I mustn't leave the Austro-Hungarian Empire ripening like that.

And how about all those popes? Jeeze, I better go back to good old 2004 and stock up on hollowpoints!

Just see all the trouble a simple time machine can cause? Why stop in 1790? How about going back to the Garden of Eden and club the snake?

[Algebra34]

The scale is different. Killing Hitler is meddling with events on a very large scale. The end result of the original timeline, sixty years later, is that humanity (and freedom to a large desgree) survived. Messing with something that has the possibility of ending badly and resulting in maybe more death and destruction isn't a wise choice.

The terrorist example doesn't have such far reaching implications. And to not act because it will affect the future is to withdraw from all human action.

A closer analogy to killing Hitler might be the 9/11 attacks. If you could go back in time and stop them, would you? It seems easy to say "yes", but the result could have been a lack of vigilance post-9/11 resulting in a nuclear bomb being smuggled into New York and detonated in 2003.

Yes. That's right. 9/11 was a good thing. Why can't the silly twoofers get that through their heads already?

[willhaven]

Everyone kills Hitler the first time. (http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html)

International Association of Time Travelers: Members' Forum Subforum: Europe – Twentieth Century – Second World War
Page 263

11/15/2104
At 14:52:28, FreedomFighter69 wrote:
Reporting my first temporal excursion since joining IATT: have just returned from 1936 Berlin, having taken the place of one of Leni Riefenstahl's cameramen and assassinated Adolf Hitler during the opening of the Olympic Games. Let a free world rejoice!

At 14:57:44, SilverFox316 wrote:
Back from 1936 Berlin; incapacitated FreedomFighter69 before he could pull his little stunt. Freedomfighter69, as you are a new member, please read IATT Bulletin 1147 regarding the killing of Hitler before your next excursion. Failure to do so may result in your expulsion per Bylaw 223.

At 18:06:59, BigChill wrote:
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their first trip. I did. It always gets fixed within a few minutes, what's the harm?

At 18:33:10, SilverFox316 wrote:
Easy for you to say, BigChill, since to my recollection you've never volunteered to go back and fix it. You think I've got nothing better to do?

11/16/2104
At 10:15:44, JudgeDoom wrote:
Good news! I just left a French battlefield in October 1916, where I shot dead a young Bavarian Army messenger named Adolf Hitler! Not bad for my first time, no? Sic semper tyrannis!

At 10:22:53, SilverFox316 wrote:
Back from 1916 France I come, having at the last possible second prevented Hitler's early demise at the hands of JudgeDoom and, incredibly, restrained myself from shooting JudgeDoom and sparing us all years of correcting his misguided antics. READ BULLETIN 1147, PEOPLE!

At 15:41:18, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Point of order: issues related to Hitler's service in the Bavarian Army ought to go in the World War I forum.

11/21/2104
At 02:21:30, SneakyPete wrote:
Vienna, 1907: after numerous attempts, have infiltrated the Academy of Fine Arts and facilitated Adolf Hitler's admission to that institution. Goodbye, Hitler the dictator; hello, Hitler the modestly successful landscape artist! Brought back a few of his paintings as well, any buyers?

At 02:29:17, SilverFox316 wrote:
All right; that's it. Having just returned from 1907 Vienna where I secured the expulsion of Hitler from the Academy by means of an elaborate prank involving the Prefect, a goat, and a substantial quantity of olive oil, I now turn my attention to our newer brethren, who, despite rules to the contrary, seem to have no intention of reading Bulletin 1147 (nor its Addendum, Alternate Means of Subverting the Hitlerian Destiny, and here I'm looking at you, SneakyPete). Permit me to sum it up and save you the trouble: no Hitler means no Third Reich, no World War II, no rocketry programs, no electronics, no computers, no time travel. Get the picture?

At 02:29:49, SilverFox316 wrote:
PS to SneakyPete: your Hitler paintings aren't worth anything, schmuck, since you probably brought them directly here from 1907, which means the paint's still fresh. Freaking n00b.

At 07:55:03, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Amen, SilverFox316. Although, point of order, issues relating to early 1900s Vienna should really go in that forum, not here. This has been a recurring problem on this forum.

11/26/2104
At 18:26:18, Jason440953 wrote:
SilverFox316, you seem to know a lot about the rules; what are your thoughts on traveling to, say, Braunau, Austria, in 1875 and killing Alois Hitler before he has a chance to father Adolf? Mind you, I'm asking out of curiosity alone, since I already went and did it.

At 18:42:55, SilverFox316 wrote:
Jason440953, see Bylaw 7, which states that all IATT rulings regarding historical persons apply to ancestors as well. I post this for the benefit of others, as I already made this clear to young Jason in person as I was dragging him back from 1875 by his hair. Got that? No ancestors. (Though if anyone were to go back to, say, Moline, Illinois, in, say, 2080 or so, and intercede to prevent Jason440953's conception, I could be persuaded to look the other way.)

At 21:19:17, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Point of order: discussions of nineteenth–century Austria and twenty–first–century Illinois should be confined to their respective forums.

12/01/2104
At 15:56:41, AsianAvenger wrote:
FreedomFighter69, JudgeDoom, SneakyPete, Jason440953, you're nothing but a pack of racists. Let the light of righteousness shine upon your squalid little viper's nest!

At 16:40:17, BigTom44 wrote:
Well, here we frickin' go.

At 16:58:42, FreedomFighter69 wrote:
Racist? For killing Hitler? WTF?

At 17:12:52, SaucyAussie wrote:
AsianAvenger, you're not rehashing that whole Nagasaki issue again, are you? We just got everyone calmed down from last time.

At 17:22:37, LadyJustice wrote:
I'm with SaucyAussie. AsianAvenger, you're making even less sense than usual. What gives?

At 18:56:09, AsianAvenger wrote:
What gives is everyone's repeated insistence on a course of action which, even if successful, would only save a few million Europeans. It would be no more trouble to travel to Fuyuanshui, China, in 1814 and kill Hong Xiuquan, thus preventing the Taiping Rebellion of the mid–nineteenth century and saving fifty million lives in the process. But, hey, what are fifty million yellow devils more or less, right, guys? We've got Poles and Frenchmen to worry about.

At 19:01:38, LadyJustice wrote:
Well, what's stopping you from killing him, AsianAvenger?

At 19:11:43, AsianAvenger wrote:
Only to have SilverFox316 undo my work? What's the point?

At 19:59:23, SilverFox316 wrote:
Actually, it seems like a pretty good idea to me, AsianAvenger. No complications that I can see.

At 20:07:25, Big Chill wrote:
Go for it, man.

At 20:11:31, AsianAvenger wrote:
Very well. I shall return in mere moments, the savior of millions!

At 20:14:17, LadyJustice wrote:
Just checked the timeline; congrats on your success, AsianAvenger!

12/02/2104
At 10:52:53, LadyJustice wrote:
AsianAvenger?

At 11:41:40, SilverFox316 wrote:
AsianAvenger, we need your report, buddy.

At 17:15:32, SilverFox316 wrote:
Okay, apparently AsianAvenger was descended from Hong Xiuquan. Any volunteers to go back and stop him from negating his own existence?

12/10/2104
At 09:14:44, SilverFox316 wrote:
Anyone?

At 09:47:13, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Point of order: this discussion belongs in the Qing Dynasty forum. We're adults; can we keep sight of what's important around here?

[SumDood]

You should all check out "The Last Supper" from 1995. Excellent little indie film pretty much based on the OP. They ask that exact question in the film and go from there. In the end, the perfect answer is given to the question.

(Sorry if someone already mentioned this earlier, i'm way to lazy to read 4 pages of posts)

[Andrew Wiggin]

There are a few elements in here that aren't getting much coverage.

Before he comitted crimes, hitler was innocent. You'd be killing an innocent man, on the premise that he would commit crimes in his future. Why not try and talk him out of it? Bring back a history book and show him how his name would be viewed, and how his actions would insure germany's humiliation rather than its everlasting glory.

There's no guarantee that killing hitler would prevent world war two or the holocaust. There were enough other folks pushing that agenda. The whole thing gets put on the guy in charge, but if he wasn't in charge, then someone else would be. While they're not likely to be identical to hitler, the political climate just about guaranteed that someone with similar ideology would climb to power. Maybe they'd be better, maybe worse. Is that enough to kill for?

If it's ok to kill someone in the past for crimes they haven't comitted yet but will, is it ok to kill someone in the present for crimes you berlieve they'll do in the future? How about if you were really really sure, like you believe god himself told you? Is that right or ethical?

A

[bluesjnr]

.....snip.....
(Sorry if someone already mentioned this earlier, i'm way to lazy to read 4 pages of posts)


Especially 4 pages that are over 5 years old. Zombie Thread Alert!

[dafydd]

No,my parents met when my Mum was transferred from Scotland to Wales in 1944 to do war work.

[Eddie Dane]

Yes, i would have killed him.

Same with Stalin or Pol Pot.
Arguably others would have risen in their place. But these individuals all maximised the damage done. Europe would have been better off if, instead of Hitler, they would have had a less extreme leader who wouldn't have gone for maximum effect on the genocide front.

[Aepervius]

Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?

There is no way whatsoever to know if it would make the world better or worst.

it could very well be that by killing Hitler you avoid WW2, only to shift it later by 20 years, at a time where all party have Nukes. And then instead of 20 millions+holocaust dead you are now faced with hundreds of millions and no holocaust. Is that any better ? I for one do not think so.

Is that an improbable scenario ? You have no way to tell except speculation.

[Foster Zygote]

See sig.

[Beerina]

What makes you think killing Hitler would have made the slightest difference?

While things could turn out even worse, statistically probably not, I reckon.

Then again, a big dustup between the US and the USSR in Europe could have been a lot worse on casualties, especially if nukes were involved.

[Cainkane1]

Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?
I would even though it would mean I'd never have been born. However this brings up another question. Would that have prevented WW2? Perhaps if a more competent person had ruled germany at that time the Germans would have won the war by not making the same mistakes Hitler did. Jews may not have been persecuted and perhaps would have soldiered along side the other germans like they did in WW1.

[Belz...]

Would you murder Hitler ?

I thought he was dead already.

[Marduk]

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o31/raynotisick/ThreadNecromancer.jpg
;)

[Careyp74]

Yes, i would have killed him.

Same with Stalin or Pol Pot.
Arguably others would have risen in their place. But these individuals all maximised the damage done. Europe would have been better off if, instead of Hitler, they would have had a less extreme leader who wouldn't have gone for maximum effect on the genocide front.

But then who would lead the England National team to victory?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jPziLQCrTJnOVk0UBpWHDYQ8e54Q

[doronshadmi]

Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?
The madness of violence and racism was all over Europe, where the roots of this madness are found all along the history of our civilization. Single persons like Hitler had such an impact because there was an atmosphere of violence all over Europe in these dark days, right after World War 1.

Hitler was a simple soldier in World War 1, and his motivation to establish the 3th reich was deeply influenced by his experience during this War (and its results to Germany after the war).

So if not Hitler, then others in Germany were entered his shoes, but personally I prefer that Hitler was killed during World War 1.

[Darth Rotor]

The madness of violence and racism was all over Europe, where the roots of this madness are found all along the history of our civilization. Single persons like Hitler had such an impact because there was an atmosphere of violence all over Europe in these dark days, right after World War 1.

Hitler was a simple soldier in World War 1, and his motivation to establish the 3th reich was deeply influenced by his experience during this War (and its results to Germany after the war).

So if not Hitler, then others in Germany were entered his shoes, but personally I prefer that Hitler was killed during World War 1.
We can therefore blame lousy French marksmanship for the Third Reich. ;)

What a fun variation on the blame the victim game. :)

DR

[Ocelot]

You forget of course that a buttload of people did press a big button marked "bomb release" to kill at a distance. In their wildest dreams they would have killed Hitler, but they'd settle for killing one of his commensurable compatriots, loyal generals, SS ideologues or patriotic footsoldier. They'd just as likely kill the factory worker who supplied the soldiers with boots or ammunition or at least demotivate the factory worker by killing her child. Thus is the glory of war.

Yet the evils of Nazi Germany were so great that a great deal of very ugly collateral damage can be excused in the attempts to stop it.

So yes if I Sam Becketted into the body of one of those bombers damn straight I'd mutter "Oh Boy" and press that button.

The question becomes more interesting if you overshoot in your journey backwards, and get to press a button to kill Hitler as a younger man.

Then the question become more one of time travel than one of morals or ethics. Only in a deterministic universe it is fair to punish Hitler for crimes committed later in the timeline. Otherwise just being there might be enough to lead to a different outcome. Maybe you could achieve the same result by sponsoring his entry to art school. But then we get into the land of the timey wimey ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TimeyWimeyBall) with questions like, if you're killing Hitler changes the future then just exactly how determinate is that then?

So here's a provocative twist. Lets say instead of leaping into the Memphis Belle with a bead on Berlin you find yourself in the Luftwaffe with Stalin between your crosshairs? Would you press that button knowing that you're killing someone who turned out to be an even more profligate mass murderer given the time and latitude to do so but possibly leading to Hitler winning the war?

Me, if I had just one time travel bullet to save 20th Century lives I'd aim it at Lysenko. The others are representations of evil but they surfed deep seated currents and I fear that history may have been much the same whichever figurehead bobbed to the crest of these waves, however Lysenko killed not through evil but through idiocy. He cold easily be replaced by just about any other agronomist and millions would be spared.

[Yoink]

It is just that I do not believe in violence. I believe in other things. I wouldn't murder Hitler even if I knew what he would do although my family has suffered.

It's a matter of principles. You either are pro violence or not there is no grey area here.

I can certainly respect the position of absolute pacifism, but to say that "you are either pro violence or not" is just as unfair and tendentious as someone in the other camp saying "you are either pro fascism or not" or "you either want 6 million Jews dead or you don't."

There's nothing but grey areas in these kinds of questions.

[leafman91]

Let's get the obvious things out the way

a) There's no guarantee that someone hasn't already done it (Hence Hitler's 'suicide') from future times

b) There are a lot of things worse than death, and many of these are really quite horrific

c) You would be denying the rest of the world the right to decide his punishment

d) If it wasn't one extremist group, it was going to be another.

[CriticalSock]

Hang on a minute. You've got a time machine? Well, forget hitler then, go back to 6000BC, stamp on the talking snake, knock any fruit about to be eaten out of any naked chick's hands and get ready for an eternity of paradise!

Then when hitler's born he'll be too busy cuddling lions and making sure not to snag his scrotal sack on thorn bushes to get all rowdy.

What?... What's wrong?? :)

[Ocelot]

Hang on a minute. You've got a time machine? Well, forget hitler then, go back to 6000BC, stamp on the talking snake, knock any fruit about to be eaten out of any naked chick's hands and get ready for an eternity of paradise!

Then when hitler's born he'll be too busy cuddling lions and making sure not to snag his scrotal sack on thorn bushes to get all rowdy.

What?... What's wrong?? :)


Hang on a minute. You've got a naked chick?...

[doronshadmi]

We can therefore blame lousy French marksmanship for the Third Reich. ;)

What a fun variation on the blame the victim game. :)

DR
It is not a question of blaming; it is a question of profound methods that our civilization has to develop, in order to reduce the ability of persons like Hitler to become powerful leaders.

[Dave Rogers]

It is not a question of blaming; it is a question of profound methods that our civilization has to develop, in order to reduce the ability of persons like Hitler to become powerful leaders.

Including better gunsights?

Dave

[Mister Agenda]

Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?

I'd buy his paintings.

[Nursefoxfire]

I know this is a resurrected thread but here's my take on the OP's question:

No, none of us would murder/assassinate/kill Hitler if we were transported back in time and given the means.

Think about it this way: While Hitler was certainly a genocidal maniac on a grand scale, he hasn't been the only one in history. And currently we are aware of several dictators who are very Hitleresque in their actions (Omar al-Bashir, I'm looking at you), and no one is booking a ticket to Darfur to off a leader, are they?

I don't know why our hindsight works so well, and why we truly believe we could take the steps needed to end the life of someone we KNOW is murdering whole groups of people. The reality is that those maniacs exist, today, and we don't need a time machine to find them. When faced with it, we don't do anything.

[fuelair]

Let's say you can go back in time, before the start of WWII, and find yourself in a position where killing Hitler can be accomplished just by pushing a button. Would you kill him ?I would happily look him in the eye, shoot out his kneecaps and put one through his throat.

[catsmate1]

We can therefore blame lousy French marksmanship for the Third Reich. Or the British inability to use poison gas properly....

No I wouldn't kill Hitler without certainty that it wouldn't replace our WW2 with something worse. Hitler was an incompetent madman; killing him (especially after the Nazi rise to power) could replace him with a competent madman and cause a far worse world war; possibly with German atomic weapons or just competent economic and military management.

Kill him between 1923 and 1933 and perhaps the Nazi party doesn't gain control of Germany, so who does? The Communists? Nationalists? Especially after the Depression had begun people were looking to the extremes for answers and Germans would still resent the Versailles treaty and its restrictions. I believe a major war was inevitable, possibly with different allies.

Kill him before he joined the Nazi party and maybe it'd never have become a major player in German politics; but the same stressors would exist, in Germany, in Europe and globally.

[slingblade]

I'd like to think I wouldn't murder him, but mentor him.

Maybe if he had some guidance from someone who knows the outcome, he could be guided to be a different leader for Germany. A better one, or at least a less lethal one.

Of course I realize there are potential unforseen consequences for that action, too. But if I were going to act, I'd rather act in a way that might modify the man, because I feel there might be a better chance for a positive outcome.

I mean, since you asked...

[RandFan]

Yes. That's right. 9/11 was a good thing. Why can't the silly twoofers get that through their heads already?What possessed you to resurrect this thread? And how did you find it?

[Tsunami]

Wouldn't it be easier to go back in time and kill the first Jew that pissed Hitler off, so Hitler would still rise in power but he would be a good guy instead?

Why not go back and kill Stalin instead since he was responsible for roughly 3 times the deaths than Hitler's "final solution".

[Esperdome]

I would only kill Hitler if I was on a plane with him and he had a gun.