Fri 17 Jan, 2003 07:42 am
OK - you are sitting in a Munich beer hall in the late 1920's. At the next table to yours is a group of rather nasty looking men. One of them is Adolf Hitler - poised to take his gang of Munich thugs to dizzy heights - in 1933 he will snatch the Chancellorship of Germany - the rest is history...
You are a time traveller, from now. You know what the future holds for this man.
You have a gun. You can kill him, now.
You are an ethical being - should you? Do you have the right to?
(For the purposes of this discussion we will assume that you can do so without negative consequences for the future - our now. This is not about time travel ethics. We shall also assume you can either escape instantly, or stay and face the music - your choice. Nobody else will be injured.)
This discussion rose out of a thread where assassintion of Hussein was briefly discussed - I thought it was a cleaner ethical dilemma to site the choice in the past...)
Thanks Phoenix! Freudian slip!
So - that would mean logically that someone who saw George Bush II as a likely crazed killer - as some truly do - would be entitled to kill him?
That's the problem with hypotheticals. They're just so damned hypothetical.
Since I cannot condone killing in any way, shape, or form, my answer is no.
a) I'm against killing in any form,
b) since all what Hitler did until then was either legal or had already been taken legal action against before ... why?
Bunny- Now you are changing the rules in the middle of the game. Your original premise in this thread was would you kill Hitler, based upon what we know about Hitler now. Nothing was said about being entitled to kill him.
Would I have been entitled to kill Hitler, based on what I know about him now? Absolutely. Would I have been entitled to kill him at that time, not knowing the future, because I thought that he might become a dangerous guy? Absolutely not!
I haven't changed anything! I am still positing a time-traveller! How did the rules change? I am just being a devil's advocate...
OK- Iraq II goes ahead - with terrible civilian casualties - would a time traveller from Iraq - (what is left of it) - in 2010 - have the right to pop back and take George II out in his college years?
Oh - I see what you mean - perhaps I was imprecise - I assumed people would discuss ethical entitlement to kill him...
OK - I have edited again - thank you for that function, Craven!
Walter - you are from the future - you KNOW what Hitler will assist to occur - still no right?
Well, of course, Deb. Kill Bush while he's in college, and let Saddam continue to develope. The analogy seems a little weak, actually.
Well, we can talk about killing Saddam if you like...
Roger - the point of the exercise was simply to debate about the rights and wrongs of assassinating political leaders.
Hitler was used as an example because most people feel pretty clear about him, and we know his history.
Bush was used as an example simply to be a devil's advocate.
I would be happy to use John Howard - but how many know who he is? And he is likely to be responsible for a lot less deasths than Bush or Saddam....
I think he may mean "my sweet arse".
Oh! oh well, can't please them all.
Of course,dlowan,I may be WAY off the mark.
I´m rather looking forward to Roger clearing this up for us.
Oooh the anticipation.
(Common shorthand method while taking minutes of meetings.)
My Sweet Arse was more fun Roger.
I might just kill the man. I am unable to kill spiders, trap mice, I couldn't finish off an animal if I'd hit it and it was still alive. I can only kill tics and mosquitoes. I'd kill Hitler.