morality test

[DesignFox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RecoveringKinkoid]

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

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

[Pedersen]

Finally posting my real answer to the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Slytovhand]

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

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

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

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

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

[Seshat]

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

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

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

[Boozy]

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

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

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

[Sylvia727]

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

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

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

[Boozy]

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

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

[Sylvia727]

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

[Pedersen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ain't time travel fun?

[Boozy]

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

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

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

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

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Slytovhand]

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

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

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

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

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


Slyt

[Boozy]

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

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

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

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

[Slytovhand]

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

[Pedersen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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