Would you kill Hitler when he was a child?

[Pendaric]

Knowing what you know about history now, you get in a time machine and end up chez Hitler when he's a 3 year old kid. You are out in the back garden with a knife, and toddler Hitler comes up beaming at you offering you some flowers he's picked and wanting to play with you.

It's a one strike deal. You won't get the opportunity again.

Would you stab him to death?

[Ray Moscow]

Yes -- or else stop him some other way.

Being omniscient, I'd figure something out.

[DMB]

That is a totally horrible situation. It's like an extreme form of all those problems where you can save five people by killing one.

Bearing in mind all the millions who could be saved, I would hope I would have the strength of mind to do it, but it would be hellishly difficult.

[Ray Moscow]

If you could travel back in time, you wouldn't have to kill anybody to radically change history. Causing him/her to miss a train would do it.

It would be easy enough to prevent Hitler's conception, for example.

[Pendaric]

If you could travel back in time, you wouldn't have to kill anybody to radically change history. Causing him/her to miss a train would do it.

It would be easy enough to prevent Hitler's conception, for example.

Possibly, but the question is more about what you yourself would be prepared to do in the situation outlined.

The question really is could you be a child killer if you believed it would be for the overall good?

The Hitler bit is just coating to make a situation where you have to examine your normal ideas.

[Ray Moscow]

I think I'd have to kill the SOB, if I couldn't stop him any other way.

I'm not sure I could actually do such a thing, though, since it goes against my normal inhibitions (and those of any other decent person). But morally, wouldn't you have to do it? One life versus millions?

[Lisa0315]

I don't think I could do it.

[Master Taran]

As to the OP. In a heartbeat. No hesitation.

[Christina]

I would want to do it but I don't think that I could. Maybe I could if it was real but I can't imagine how it would feel now without recoiling from the thought before I even fiinish thinking it.

[nygreenguy]

But, if we did this, what would the effect on the world be? We would have never experienced the holocaust. What if, because of that, we get someone who is worse than hitler.

As much as I would like to, I think its best to learn from history and not change it. :)

[Stout Drinker]

I don't think I could do it either. I couldn't kill a child.

I've posed the similar question in some wingnut sites when I asked if Hitler's mother should have had an abortion.

[Anne]

Stopping Hitler would be as easy as fixing the treaty that ended WW2.

If it weren't Hitler, it would have been someone else to try to figure out how to save Germany.

[Goodchild]

But, if we did this, what would the effect on the world be? We would have never experienced the holocaust. What if, because of that, we get someone who is worse than hitler.

As much as I would like to, I think its best to learn from history and not change it. :)

^^This. I wouldn't do it. Besides which you get yourself into Grandfather Paradoxes anyway.

A better question would be if you lived in that time frame and were able to travel forward and see what would happen if a particular child were allowed to live.

[David B]

Paradoxes abound.

By killing Hitler then the likelihood that you would never have been born to get on the time machine in the first place would be quite high, and in my case the chances of my parents ever meeting would have been remote.

To go back in time and kill Hitler would be to wipe out all those people alive today in which the war and its consequences were consistent with the appropriate sperm meeting the appropriate egg.

A large chunk of humanity, I'd guess.

David

[Lisa0315]

Stopping Hitler would be as easy as fixing the treaty that ended WW2.

If it weren't Hitler, it would have been someone else to try to figure out how to save Germany.

You mean WWI, right? Treaty of Versailles, if I remember correctly, or was it the Treaty of Paris? I always get those confused, but yeah, France in particular, were pretty vindictive, and it most certainly led to the second war. Whether it had been Hitler or some other maniac, I do not know. I do agree completely though that it would be far better to fix the terms of that treaty than to murder Hitler as a child.

Lisa

[Thalia Thinks]

I couldn't do it because I don't think I have murder in me unless someone hurts my child.

Right behind that, I am on the track of not messing with history. There are too many things that might/might not be if you go changing things.

[Anne]

You mean WWI, right? Treaty of Versailles, if I remember correctly, or was it the Treaty of Paris? I always get those confused, but yeah, France in particular, were pretty vindictive, and it most certainly led to the second war. Whether it had been Hitler or some other maniac, I do not know. I do agree completely though that it would be far better to fix the terms of that treaty than to murder Hitler as a child.

Lisa

duh, yeah! I thought 1 and wrote 2.

my bad.

[Jobar]

Classic science fiction plot.

If time travel is possible, and history can be changed, then there have to be an infinite number of histories; many worlds, myriad ways.

So even if there's a "you" that goes back and kills an infant Hitler, there are also "yous" that can't kill a child, or kidnap him and have him raised by Buddhist monks, or... well, every imaginable option.

Interestingly enough, even if you know this is so, you still face the same quandary as you stand there with your knife; "you" are a singular consciousness within a single world line, and if it's possible that you could save that single line from the agony of WW2 (or at least parts of it)- should you?

Me, if I had that choice, I'd probably go with the "Buddhist monks" option. :)

[Hex]

If it weren't Hitler, it would have been someone else to try to figure out how to save Germany.

Yeah, and then it might be someone who would have let the competent military general run the war and not make personally wasteful vendetta-like endeavors like trying to 'bomb England into submission' ... :eek:

[Lisa0315]

Yeah, and then it might be someone who would have let the competent military general run the war and not make personally wasteful vendetta-like endeavors like trying to 'bomb England into submission' ... :eek:

It might have been less about the Jews too. There might not have been a reason for Israel, and no conflict in Gaza and the Middle East, at least, not that which would have impacted us as much.

From a (fundie) Christian perspective, all of these things happened according to God's plan, but the creation of Israel is paramount to fulfilled prophecy. Fundie pastors will say from the pulpit that with the creation of Israel, there is nothing more that needs to occur for the return of Christ.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

Knowing what you know about history now, you get in a time machine and end up chez Hitler when he's a 3 year old kid. You are out in the back garden with a knife, and toddler Hitler comes up beaming at you offering you some flowers he's picked and wanting to play with you.

It's a one strike deal. You won't get the opportunity again.

Would you stab him to death?No. I would look for a different way to affect future events. If this is not an option I would still not kill him.

[Ray Moscow]

Surely we time travellers would have other means than child murder to change history (assuming that we would want to or could)?

[Cath B]

If I did so I wouldn't be here to go back in time and do it.

My parents wouldn't have met if it hadn't been for WWII

We are all the spawn of the misfortunes of yesteryear.

[Cath B]

Paradoxes abound.

By killing Hitler then the likelihood that you would never have been born to get on the time machine in the first place would be quite high, and in my case the chances of my parents ever meeting would have been remote.

To go back in time and kill Hitler would be to wipe out all those people alive today in which the war and its consequences were consistent with the appropriate sperm meeting the appropriate egg.

A large chunk of humanity, I'd guess.

David

Dammit, just realised David made that point first!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Classic science fiction plot.

And also, reversed, a smashing Roald Dahl story. "Congratulations, Frau Hitler, You have a baby boy."

[Eudaimonist]

I would advise Hitler to follow his dream of being a painter.

If that didn't work, I'd explain to him how he will die (suicide, having lost the war) if he stays on his present course.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ray Moscow]

The ultimate irony would be that in trying to stop Hitler, you ended up creating him or setting him on his life's course.

[Eudaimonist]

The ultimate irony would be that in trying to stop Hitler, you ended up creating him or setting him on his life's course.

D'oh!

[Twilight Zone music ending]


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Brother Daniel]

The ultimate irony would be that in trying to stop Hitler, you ended up creating him or setting him on his life's course.
I think some sf authors have told the story that way.

I vaguely recall one really funny short story about this. The time-traveller protagonist was dodging bullets fired by a hundred other time-travellers from other eras, shooting at Hitler from all directions. After Hitler was killed, he overheard a brief conversation from some German scientists (something like this):

"Uh oh. We'll have to use the other demagogue android now."

"But he's much less stable!"

"I know, but we have no choice...."

[Jobar]

Who's read Behold the Man by Michael Moorcock?

A Christian, an intense believer, wants to go back and be one of Jesus' followers. He travels back to 15 AD, finds Joseph and Mary- and their son Jesus, who is a congenital idiot.

So he winds up stepping into the shoes of the Gospel Jesus, minus the miracles. But his actions result in the birth of Christianity.

His last words on the cross- "It's a lie... it's a lie..."

Killer tale.

[Eudaimonist]

Who's read Behold the Man by Michael Moorcock?

Oo! Oo! I have! :wave:

I used to be a big Michael Moorcock fan.

His novel Glorianna is also great for its alternate history. In the novel, set in alternate-Elizabethan times, Christianity never happened, and the New World was colonized by ostracized Stoics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Cath B]

Who's read Behold the Man by Michael Moorcock?

A Christian, an intense believer, wants to go back and be one of Jesus' followers. He travels back to 15 AD, finds Joseph and Mary- and their son Jesus, who is a congenital idiot.

So he winds up stepping into the shoes of the Gospel Jesus, minus the miracles. But his actions result in the birth of Christianity.

His last words on the cross- "It's a lie... it's a lie..."

Killer tale.

Me too.

Back in the 70s

I found it intriguing at the time, but I'm not sure I'd like Moorcock if I tried rereading him now.

[Cath B]

I've been unsuccessfully looking for my copy of Zadig by Voltaire.

It has some story about the priest drowning the son(?) of an old lady who treated him kindly. When his motives are questioned (as well they might be!) he claims that had he lived he would have grown up to do great harm.

Hmmm, not sure about this.

[reddhedd]

No. Children need love and kindness to grow up to be loving, kind adults.
Surely befriending him and encouraging him onto other paths would be a better use of my time travel experience...and I would be living my beliefs and convictions. To kill a small child is an utter betrayal of the values I hold dear. I want to like myself, ya know?

[Jobar]

Hiya redd! Great to see you here! :)

[Jobar]

There's also a Stephen King short story- can't recall the title- where this sweet schoolteacher starts seeing all the kids in one of her classes as demons. No one else can see them, but things start happening which confirm that her vision is the truth. The tale ends with her carrying an explosive into her classroom- but doesn't say what she does with it.

[Mung Dynasty]

Can demons be killed by explosives? Relevant point here.

[Eudaimonist]

Can demons be killed by explosives? Relevant point here.

Yes, if the explosive's casing has been enchanted all the way up to +5. :wizard:


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Mung Dynasty]

Must admit I used to love the grenade launcher in Devil May Cry. :D

[Ray Moscow]

There's also a Stephen King short story- can't recall the title- where this sweet schoolteacher starts seeing all the kids in one of her classes as demons. No one else can see them, but things start happening which confirm that her vision is the truth. The tale ends with her carrying an explosive into her classroom- but doesn't say what she does with it.

King's The Dead Zone was on this theme, too, and dealt with the "would you kill Hitler" question.

The answer: hell, yes.

[reddhedd]

How about you go another 5 years back, and just prevent his mother and father from meeting? Maybe perform a tubal ligation on her, so there's no way she can reproduce?
Hi Jobar....

[hecaterin]

Stephen Fry has a gorgeous take on this in Making History. I recommend it.

I think my choice here is to kidnap the child. But I always find these hypotheticals irritating; they are so unreal. Not at all how we really make decisions.

[His Noodly Appendage]

To answer the question as intended:

If the choice is between the cold-blooded murder of a toddler and allowing millions to be brutally killed as a result of your inaction, then yes, the least-worst course of action, and the one that you're morally obliged to take, is to cold-bloodedly murder the child.

It doesn't make it "good". It's just less-bad than doing nothing. It's still exactly as bad as one child-murder, and the blood will be on your hands. It would be completely inexcusable, except that the alternative leaves millions of times more blood on your hands, so there's no real choice.

Could I personally go through with it?

That, I don't know. I hope I would have the fortitude, though I think the guilt from either action would likely drive me to suicide.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Why do people leap through hoops to avoid answering these questions, anyway?

[Mung Dynasty]

Dunno. I'd fucking do it. Wouldn't feel wonderful about it at the time but I'd do it anyway.

[Mung Dynasty]

Actually I do know. It's because, as you said, killing the kid wouldn't be actually "good" and most people like to think of themselves as good.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I agree with HNA; sometimes there is no "good" response, simply the "least wrong."

And I'd shoot myself probably immediately afterwards.

[Danhalen]

Why do people leap through hoops to avoid answering these questions, anyway?I didn't get the impression people were trying to avoid the question. I think people go out of their way to answer the question within the parameters of the stated question. If your question is one of why people avoid ethical dilemmas the answer is people do not like to imagine themselves doing something they feel is morally wrong.

[Danhalen]

I agree with HNA; sometimes there is no "good" response, simply the "least wrong."

And I'd shoot myself probably immediately afterwards.I don't agree. When there is a true moral dilemma both options are equally bad. If they are equally bad they are also equally good. If they are equally good then it does not matter which you choose. It becomes a matter of preference.

[Ray Moscow]

The question is set up to create an ethical dilemma, so of course we "normal" people who usually avoid child murder have to qualify our answers.

There would presumably be options besides killing a child if we could time travel -- just knock on his parent's door just before his conception, for example. No conception, no Hitler.

Of course, someone even worse might come along anyway.

[Danhalen]

The question is actually not about Hitler as a child. The question pits deontology against consequentialism and asks which is better. Assuming those are the only two options to choose from, the deontologist will not kill the child and the consequentialist will kill the child.

[David B]

No-one seems to be taking any notice of the point made by Cath and me, that to go back in time to prevent the rise of Nazism and the occurence of WW2 would be to take out of existence a large chunk of present humanity, including many people on this board.:(

David

[Danhalen]

No-one seems to be taking any notice of the point made by Cath and me, that to go back in time to prevent the rise of Nazism and the occurence of WW2 would be to take out of existence a large chunk of present humanity, including many people on this board.:(I don't know if the time paradox point is a philosophical question. I think it's more of a science question. In any case, if Hitler never came to power my grandmother would have married someone other than my grandfather.

[David B]

So if I for instance, were to go back in time, and prevented Hitler's rise to power, it would have stopped your coming into existence at the same time.

The time paradox is only part of what Cath and I are saying.

It also raised the question of whether preventing Hitler rising to power, by killing him or otherwise, and preventing him committing his atrocities, would be a good thing to do in light of the fact that you, and billions of other people, who are alive now would then not be alive, were I to do so.

David

[Ray Moscow]

No-one seems to be taking any notice of the point made by Cath and me, that to go back in time to prevent the rise of Nazism and the occurence of WW2 would be to take out of existence a large chunk of present humanity, including many people on this board.:(

David

As a consequentialist, I'd have to take into account the amount of human suffering that the action would ease or bring.

Even if it meant wiping me and mine out of existence.

[David B]

As a consequentialist, I'd have to take into account the amount of human suffering that the action would take or bring.

Which would be unpredictable, would it not?

Even if it meant wiping me and mine out of existence.

As a human being, if I were to find out that someone were going to do something to wipe me out of existence, I would defend myself

David

[Ray Moscow]

Which would be unpredictable, would it not?


Beyond a certain range, almost certainly. But we'd do it in the present (stop a genocidal maniac, for instance), if we could.

As a human being, if I were to find out that someone were going to do something to wipe me out of existence, I would defend myself


Try and stop me! Bawahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[David B]

Beyond a certain range, almost certainly. But we'd do it in the present (stop a genocidal maniac, for instance), if we could.

Yes. But that would not involve destroying the existence of actual people.

Try and stop me! Bawahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'll leave that to the laws of physics, for the foreseeable future, anyway:p

[Anne]

It also raised the question of whether preventing Hitler rising to power, by killing him or otherwise, and preventing him committing his atrocities, would be a good thing to do in light of the fact that you, and billions of other people, who are alive now would then not be alive, were I to do so.


What about the billions of people who are not currently alive because you haven't done it?

My mom told me that she was happy to have married my dad because if she hadn't, she wouldn't have me or my brother.

I told her, that because she married my dad, she's never met her other potential kids by someone else.

[David B]

What about the billions of people who are not currently alive because you haven't done it?

My mom told me that she was happy to have married my dad because if she hadn't, she wouldn't have me or my brother.

I told her, that because she married my dad, she's never met her other potential kids by someone else.

That is true - but do you think she would go back in time to change the course of her life, knowing that it would in effect kill you?

[Anne]

I would hope so.

She has in effect killed her other children who probably would have had happier lives growing up with a different father.

It's not like she'd ever know me. It's not like I'd die.

Life is a gamble already. Who's to say they way it's worked out is the best?

[Danhalen]

So if I for instance, were to go back in time, and prevented Hitler's rise to power, it would have stopped your coming into existence at the same time.

The time paradox is only part of what Cath and I are saying.

It also raised the question of whether preventing Hitler rising to power, by killing him or otherwise, and preventing him committing his atrocities, would be a good thing to do in light of the fact that you, and billions of other people, who are alive now would then not be alive, were I to do so.I'm not sure preventing current circumstances by eliminating their possibility in the past is a moral conundrum.

[David B]

I'm not sure preventing current circumstances by eliminating their possibility in the past is a moral conundrum.

Looks like one to me!

If you were a parent with two children, but have fallen out with your partner, and could go back in time and not produce those children with that partner, do you think you could do it without a moral qualm?

[Danhalen]

If I decided it would have been better to not have had children then I would not have a moral qualm. You see, I have already decided the moral thing to do is going back in time to stop the birth of my children. So where is the conundrum?

[Anne]

Why not?

Why are you ignoring the moral responsibilty to your other children, the ones whose lives never happened because of your choices?

Every choice we make affects everyone else. Why is this one choice such a moral quandry?

[David B]

If I decided it would have been better to not have had children then I would not have a moral qualm. You see, I have already decided the moral thing to do is going back in time to stop the birth of my children. So where is the conundrum?

What is the moral difference between going back in time to prevent their births, and just killing them now?

[Anne]

There'd be no loss to anyone if they never were.

[Ray Moscow]

What is the moral difference between going back in time to prevent their births, and just killing them now?

Think of all the millions of people you've killed by masturbating, and you get the idea.

[Eudaimonist]

For theists, if you support America's military involvement in WWII, and you also know that you could go back in time, but only to convince Hitler's mother to have an abortion, would you do so?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[David B]

There'd be no loss to anyone if they never were.

Is that not the crucial difference? We who are alive because of Hitler's atrocities actually are. Those who would have existed had history been different never were.

[Eudaimonist]

What is the moral difference between going back in time to prevent their births, and just killing them now?

You'd be wiping out their lives. It's far too easy to say that "they never were". You'd know that they were, and you'll have taken action to render their entire lives nonexistent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Anne]

That assumes your own memory isn't altered as well.

And, isn't that personal pain worth the millions of people you'd have relieved?

If you change history, then you change which of us never were. I'd argue any world without holocaust is better than any world with.

Did you guys watch Buffy?

[Eudaimonist]

That assumes your own memory isn't altered as well.

You would know at the time you decided to go back into the past to carry out your deed. That is the morally relevant time, since that knowledge fuels your decision.

And, isn't that personal pain worth the millions of people you'd have relieved?

I'm not a utilitarian.

I'd argue any world without holocaust is better than any world with.

Oh, I agree with you. However, this isn't quite enough moral justification for me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Danhalen]

Is that not the crucial difference? We who are alive because of Hitler's atrocities actually are. Those who would have existed had history been different never were.If I go back in time and change things then you actually are not. You would then become one of those who never were (but might have been). I have changed the state of affairs by changing the past. Your existence ceases to become morally relevant.

[Danhalen]

I'd argue any world without holocaust is better than any world with.I would argue any actual state of affairs is better than potential state of affairs.

[Anne]

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't?

I'll gamble and take another toss of the dice.

[Lisa0315]

Well, for those who believe in God, it is comforting to know that God intervenes or allows things to happen for a reason. From the Christian perspective, WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, were all bits and pieces of a much greater plan. All led to the conflict in the Middle East which will eventually result in Armageddon.

[Danhalen]

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't?No. I think there is an intrinsic value in that which is (which is absent in that which might be).

[Ray Moscow]

Well, for those who believe in God, it is comforting to know that God intervenes or allows things to happen for a reason. From the Christian perspective, WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, were all bits and pieces of a much greater plan. All led to the conflict in the Middle East which will eventually result in Armageddon.

Whew! I feel better already.;)

Seriously: what part of the end of the world and the grisly deaths of practically everybody do you find comforting?

[Danhalen]

Well, for those who believe in God, it is comforting to know that God intervenes or allows things to happen for a reason. From the Christian perspective, WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, were all bits and pieces of a much greater plan. All led to the conflict in the Middle East which will eventually result in Armageddon.I do not think it is moral to rejoice in the belief that the world, as we know it, is getting closer to its end.

[Anne]

No. I think there is an intrinsic value in that which is (which is absent in that which might be).

Except that once the change is made, that value switches.

Well, for those who believe in God, it is comforting to know that God intervenes or allows things to happen for a reason. From the Christian perspective, WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, were all bits and pieces of a much greater plan. All led to the conflict in the Middle East which will eventually result in Armageddon.

This to me proves that this god is fallable, impotent, and heartless.

[Danhalen]

Except that once the change is made, that value switches.Sure, hypothetically speaking. The problem is, there is more value in the currently existing than in the current potentially existing. You have to intentionally bring something into being which is actually less valuable right now.

[Anne]

Sure, hypothetically speaking. The problem is, there is more value in the currently existing than in the current potentially existing. You have to intentionally bring something into being which is actually less valuable right now.

ok, as long as we're only going to talk practical from now on... ;)

I see the world as a haze of possibilites that can not come to fruition because of simple choices that could have been stopped/changed.

Not destroying Alexandria. Giving DaVinci the tools he needed. Preventing the Black Death. The Inquisition. Telling the Amerinds to kill the sailors who showed up instantly.

Each could have led to a much much better although different world. Each one has.

Maybe I just see today as a good place, but good despite what has happened in history, not because of it. I can only see the world blooming better with some pruning, not falling to rot.

Does that make me an optimist or a cynic? That I think we've dragged ourselves from rock bottom to here, and we have far far to go to get somewhere to be proud of?

[Lisa0315]

Except that once the change is made, that value switches.



This to me proves that this god is fallable, impotent, and heartless.

It depends. Would you start a war if you knew that the end of that war would be permanant peace, no hunger, and all wrongs in the world were made right?

Lisa

[Anne]

Not if I had other means at my disposal.

[Lisa0315]

Not if I had other means at my disposal.

You would have to take away freewill for those other means to work. Armageddon, and the tribulation are but one more chance for man to choose sides, i.e., exercise our freewill.

Lisa

[Uthgar the Brazen]

You would have to take away freewill for those other means to work. Armageddon, and the tribulation are but one more chance for man to choose sides, i.e., exercise our freewill.

Lisa

If these are inevitabilities, then our wills are not truly free. In your scenario, at best we are given a nature with the absolute certainty we will behave according to it and in easily-predicted patterns. And most of us will then be tortured eternally for that.

Your god is a monster.

[Anne]

You would have to take away freewill for those other means to work. Armageddon, and the tribulation are but one more chance for man to choose sides, i.e., exercise our freewill.

Lisa

Freewill is a letter of transit.

It only exists to further the plot.

How does sending people to suffer and die allow them free will? If I as a tri-omni god can't figure out a better way to preserve free will without war and violence, then I'm not much good, am I?

[Lisa0315]

Freewill is a letter of transit.

It only exists to further the plot.

How does sending people to suffer and die allow them free will? If I as a tri-omni god can't figure out a better way to preserve free will without war and violence, then I'm not much good, am I?

Well, I definitely understand that. If I were allowed to ask one question, my question would be "What was the point of creating man when you knew we would fall and so many would go to hell?"

The only answer I have ever received on that from another Christian was that it was better to love and lose than to never love at all.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

If these are inevitabilities, then our wills are not truly free. In your scenario, at best we are given a nature with the absolute certainty we will behave according to it and in easily-predicted patterns. And most of us will then be tortured eternally for that.

Your god is a monster.

With the information we have right now, I cannot disagree. Faith, then, bridges that gap, and to trust in God, we must believe that there is a good reason, one that we simply do not know or understand.

Lisa

[Uthgar the Brazen]

At no real cost to the god in question, but at horrible, eternal cost to his "toys."

Monster.

ETA: stop cross-posting! How can you be so mean to someone who's doomed to suffer eternally?! :p

[Lisa0315]

At no real cost to the god in question, but at horrible, eternal cost to his "toys."

Monster.

Perhaps. I don't know. I have not found God to be someone I easily trust, if at all.

[Anne]

Did he know he would fail? I mean, that his creation would fail?

If you look closely, doesn't he think it's all good, until he repents of ever having made us with Noah?

[Uthgar the Brazen]

With the information we have right now, I cannot disagree. Faith, then, bridges that gap, and to trust in God, we must believe that there is a good reason, one that we simply do not know or understand.

Lisa

I chased my tail with powerful devotion for over 25 years. All done.

[Lisa0315]

Did he know he would fail? I mean, that his creation would fail?

If you look closely, doesn't he think it's all good, until he repents of ever having made us with Noah?

Yeah. He knew. I even suspect that we are nothing but game pieces in some cosmic game of chess between God and Satan.

[David B]

Did he know he would fail? I mean, that his creation would fail?

If you look closely, doesn't he think it's all good, until he repents of ever having made us with Noah?

Bloody good example of omniscience and omnipotence, bible God:evil:

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Yeah. He knew. I even suspect that we are nothing but game pieces in some cosmic game of chess between God and Satan.

Which raises questions about who's really in charge.

[Lisa0315]

At no real cost to the god in question, but at horrible, eternal cost to his "toys."

Monster.

ETA: stop cross-posting! How can you be so mean to someone who's doomed to suffer eternally?! :p

If the fundies or Catholics or Muslims are right, then, I am as doomed as you. :irony:

Lisa

[Anne]

Perhaps. I don't know. I have not found God to be someone I easily trust, if at all.

Then why choose the fear and confusion and pain?

It's not the only religion out there. What else have you explored? Why are you in this one?

[Anne]

Yeah. He knew. I even suspect that we are nothing but game pieces in some cosmic game of chess between God and Satan.

So, you're Hellenistic? ;)

[Danhalen]

ok, as long as we're only going to talk practical from now on... ;)My humor does translate?

I see the world as a haze of possibilites that can not come to fruition because of simple choices that could have been stopped/changed.

Not destroying Alexandria. Giving DaVinci the tools he needed. Preventing the Black Death. The Inquisition. Telling the Amerinds to kill the sailors who showed up instantly.I see logical space as being within the world.

Each could have led to a much much better although different world. Each one has.I do not see each possibility as having actualized. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems you are claiming all logical possibilities are realized in the world.

Maybe I just see today as a good place, but good despite what has happened in history, not because of it. I can only see the world blooming better with some pruning, not falling to rot.

Does that make me an optimist or a cynic? That I think we've dragged ourselves from rock bottom to here, and we have far far to go to get somewhere to be proud of?As long as you're an active participant, who cares whether you're an optimist or a cynic? As far as being proud of where we are, how about we are proud of what we have done to get there instead.

[Lisa0315]

Which raises questions about who's really in charge.

Oh, I would say that God is in full control. What really blows my mind is the book of Job. A test of faith, a chess game, but at the end, Job gets a new family, new wealth, etc. Does that really replace the old? Sorry, for me it would not.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Then why choose the fear and confusion and pain?

It's not the only religion out there. What else have you explored? Why are you in this one?

Conditioning, brainwashing, and most of all Scrupulosity. :( If I could be free, I would. Yet, there is still a part of me that wants so much to please God. I just know that I can't.

[Lisa0315]

So, you're Hellenistic? ;)

LOL! :D Sounds like it, doesn't it?

[Anne]

My humor does translate?

If I got it, then yes... ;)

I see logical space as being within the world.

I do not see each possibility as having actualized. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems you are claiming all logical possibilities are realized in the world.

No, just that this is merely one spate of possibilites. This calls to mind the Creationist 'obviously goddidit! How else would be be here!' answer to evolution. Easily, if we weren't here, something else would be. Our existence is not the final step. Just because we are does not make us the best. It just makes us us.

As long as you're an active participant, who cares whether you're an optimist or a cynic? As far as being proud of where we are, how about we are proud of what we have done to get there instead.

Because we've gotten here despite our actions. Should I be proud of my wealth when I bought a lotto ticket?

[Anne]

Conditioning, brainwashing, and most of all Scrupulosity. :( If I could be free, I would. Yet, there is still a part of me that wants so much to please God. I just know that I can't.

:hug:

[Danhalen]

No, just that this is merely one spate of possibilites. This calls to mind the Creationist 'obviously goddidit! How else would be be here!' answer to evolution. Easily, if we weren't here, something else would be. Our existence is not the final step. Just because we are does not make us the best. It just makes us us.I never said 'what is' is best. I said 'what is' has more value. I could have 50k in my checking account. I do have 2k in my checking account. I think there is more value in actually having 2k than potentially having 50k.

Because we've gotten here despite our actions. Should I be proud of my wealth when I bought a lotto ticket?No. But you could be proud of what you do with your wealth.

[Anne]

I never said 'what is' is best. I said 'what is' has more value. I could have 50k in my checking account. I do have 2k in my checking account. I think there is more value in actually having 2k than potentially having 50k.

But the idea is that you have a dreadful holocaust on the one had, in your account, and you have the potential for no holocaust in the other.

How can you not choose the potential?

It's not like money--- it's like cancer. Is the reality of having it worth it to keep it over the potential of not having it? Would you roll the dice again?

[Danhalen]

But the idea is that you have a dreadful holocaust on the one had, in your account, and you have the potential for no holocaust in the other.

How can you not choose the potential?

It's not like money--- it's like cancer. Is the reality of having it worth it to keep it over the potential of not having it? Would you roll the dice again?I have had horrible experiences in my life. Do I wish I could have avoided them? Sure I do. Knowing what I know now, would I go back and change them? No I would not. Why not? Because that which is concrete is something I can hold onto. The potential for changing the outcome of a situation does not make the potential reality. Potentiality is always potential.

If I could go back and change everything to the degree that I would have everything exactly as I want it to be, then I would. That is, I want to be able to have the benefits of having the horrible experience and the benefits of not having the horrible experience. If that is possible, then I will make the change.

[Anne]

Not me.

I'd happily trade what I have now for the potential for better, in certain things.

There are some curtains I wish I never looked behind. I'm betting Lisa groks that.

[Lisa0315]

I think I agree with Dan. Without understanding all the consequences, how can you go back and change things? We think it is for the greater good, but how do we know for sure? What if without WWII, Einstein stayed in Europe, and the Germans got the bomb first. Instead of a Jewish holocaust, we might have had a total annihilation of anyone not Aryan. The gays, the Muslims, Jews, blacks, hispanics, Catholics, those who simply rejoice in freedom of expression would all be gone.

Again, I believe only God has the foreknowledge to know when to intercede and when to allow even evil things to happen for a purpose.

Lisa

[Anne]

And I see it as a what if game where all the potentials are better than what we have now.

<shrug>

It's the best of all possible worlds, it's the worst of all possible worlds.

[Lisa0315]

And I see it as a what if game where all the potentials are better than what we have now.

<shrug>

It's the best of all possible worlds, it's the worst of all possible worlds.

Yeah.

[Danhalen]

I think I agree with Dan. Without understanding all the consequences, how can you go back and change things? We think it is for the greater good, but how do we know for sure?That's not why I object. I like what the past has made me in the present. I will not lose what I am for what I could be.

[Anne]

That's not why I object. I like what the past has made me in the present. I will not lose what I am for what I could be.

I understand that.

I'd rather personally not have the lessons I've learned and be blissfully unaware of the hells that are out there.

While they have made me a better person, what I have gained is tiny and worthless compared to what I have lost.

[Lisa0315]

That's not why I object. I like what the past has made me in the present. I will not lose what I am for what I could be.

The way I stated that was misleading. I meant I agree with you to not change things, but my reasons are different from yours.

[His Noodly Appendage]

The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.

The pessimist sadly agrees.

And the cynic knew he'd say that.

I'm a cynical pessimist.

[Jobar]

The question is actually not about Hitler as a child. The question pits deontology against consequentialism and asks which is better. Assuming those are the only two options to choose from, the deontologist will not kill the child and the consequentialist will kill the child.

My problem here is that the scenario is just too unrealistic- as in, impossible. Neither horn of the dilemma seems achievable, so the morality or immorality of either action is rendered moot by the very fact that neither action can ever occur.

Maybe I've just read way too much science fiction.

Consider a reality where time has only a single track; in such a world time travel is impossible for several reasons. Perhaps the easiest to understand is how would you know what you wanted to do when you went back in time? If you went back and killed Hitler, there would be no WWII, and even if 'you' still managed to be born, you wouldn't know about WWII, so you wouldn't go back and kill Hitler, so WWII happens anyway. Direct and inescapable paradox.

In a many-worlds reality, where multiple histories are not only possible but necessary, there are versions of 'you' who do both; go back and realize you can't kill a child even if it is Hitler, *and* go back and kill the child.

So in one reality the quandary is impossible to set up, and in the other the quandary is meaningless because both possible actions occur.

[His Noodly Appendage]

The trouble is, Jobar, that if you ask about deontology vs consequentialism, most people will either be unfamiliar with the terms and so not engage, or treat it as a completely detached, intellectual question, trying to answer it on which has better support in the academic field or such, without engaging their moral intuition and investigating their actual personal ethics.

So you construct a simple example to get people thinking about the actual issues, and to engage directly with the topic themselves.

And from there, the nitpicking starts. So, you lock down each nitpick as it comes up. No no, you know that X. Yes yes, it's inevitable that Y. And yes, you're locked into one choice or the other. Why? I don't care. There's an elephant in the way. There. Now answer the damn question.

Then they proudly announce that they're not answering that, it's not realistic.

Is it moral to punch people in the face at this juncture?

[Danhalen]

My problem here is that the scenario is just too unrealistic- as in, impossible. Neither horn of the dilemma seems achievable, so the morality or immorality of either action is rendered moot by the very fact that neither action can ever occur.The question operates under the assumption it is possible so you can answer it. I am positive there is some way to frame a question which you find plausible with similar moral ramifications. But it gets hard to come up with a question every person will agree sets up a possible scenario, and so we ask you to assume this one is possible.

[Jobar]

The scenario shapes the question, right enough.

How are we to decide when or if we have sufficient information to make the choice? If you can be certain that one death will save a hundred lives, will you kill the one? Ah, but what if the one is a brilliant scientist/philanthropist/artist, and the hundred are all congenital idiots or criminals?

I'm sure that we could frame a hypothetical question which would allow for only one answer. Say you have the ability do stop a single voluntary suicide from killing him or herself. But doing so means that a plague they carry will wipe out the entire human race. Do you prevent the suicide? At that extreme, do you think anyone would save one life at the known cost of all lives? If they do, they're insane.

On the other end of the scale, is it moral to kill a person with one day left to live, to save a person with two days left to live? (Some questions of medical ethics approach this in reality.)

The conditions that apply to the hypothetical scenario are vital to the decision. (It's an interesting question which is more important- the *external* conditions of the scenario, or the *internal* conditions of the person making the choice.)

[Danhalen]

The conditions that apply to the hypothetical scenario are vital to the decision. (It's an interesting question which is more important- the *external* conditions of the scenario, or the *internal* conditions of the person making the choice.)I think this is an incredibly interesting point. I'd like to watch psychologists duking it out over this one. Personally, I think the relationship between the external and internal conditions are equally as interesting as the importance we place on either.

[Jobar]

I wonder if someone with more mathematical savvy than I could map this out in some multidimensional state space? Deciding what the variables would be, and how to measure them, would be a booger...