Indeed, hebba, but it takes a bit more provocation than that to get me started with language.
I need to get into an office some time Roger.MSA indeed.
You can't study something without changing it. The moment time travel is possible the past will start changing exponentially and you just might get back there and see him vanish (someone 1,000 years ahead of your time went back to the day he was born and killed him).
I'd not kill him because a) destiny doesn't exist and b) I am against any alteration of the past through time travel
Depends who is the time traveler?
What if Herman Goering traveled back in time and met up with Churchill, Roosevelt and Eisenhower when they were in college. Would he kill them because he believed in Hitler and that these three brought the downfall of the supreme German race.
And from there the possibilities never end. What if someone went back to get Herman because Herman went back.........
Nope... I wouldn't kill him. Let's say we kill him. No negative consequences, only positive. Great! So, if that went well, I guess we could also kill Stalin. Well, and that Raspoetin was an arsehole. Not to mention that blasted Richelieu from France. Oh, and Louis the XIV as well, he was such a snob. Not to mention that bratty Napoleon! And I never liked that 'holier then thou' attitude of Joan of Arc. And if we can do that, why not simply shoot all them darn blasted slavetraders? Saves lives in the end! Of course, you have to kill their bosses as well. And I'm sure there have been plenty of peacefull people crushed by the Huns. So let's kill the Huns.
All right, now that I typed out that rather unnecessary alinea, I guess I made my point : Where does it end?
Grrrrr - Craven et al - I said it wasn't a time-travel question - purely an ethical one! But I see this topic is doomed to failure - too many bells and whistles...nemmind.
If it wasn't Hitler it would have been someone else!
The time and movement was such that, although he was the figurehead then, history would still probably have been similar if not exactly the same.
To kill him may not change all the events that occurred or the hatred and decisions to do the things that were done. A lot of events happen due to incitement from one source or more. It's like a gang of thugs careening about town. If you take out its ringleader, sure the motion is slowed but the rest of the group is still about wreaking some havoc.
If I could, as a time-traveller, journey back to a place in a significant persons life, with the hope to change dreadful events occurring directly in relation to this person, I would rather plan to intercept them. By this I mean, if knowing the personality, events and history of that person I can discover he was unhappy, unloved, met evildoers (sorry couldn't resist popping that in there) I would hope to re-direct the course of a persons life by showing them another way, educating them or steering them to avoid the collision course they seem to be on.
Changing history with a violent event could wipe out a large chunk of the present day - from people born, who create ideas, change economies, build structures, or make our world what it is. Who are we to change something and not be fully aware of the ripple effect (both good and bad) it will have on future generations. If God saw fit to let this carnage take place without stopping it, then who are we to go back and rewrite that episode?
I say, if someone is caught in a dreadful act and is killed at that moment to prevent further cruelty, that I can understand. But 'do-overs' are for childrens games, and not real life.
Also it would be a shame to lose such a rich and textured treatise on what "NOT" to do, how "NOT" to behave; what are the effects of "unacceptable ideas, and behaviour!
Admittedly at a horrendous cost, sadly already paid.
solution;
Where are the Palestinian suicide bombers, when you need them!
BoGoWo - WHAT, please tell me, is your avatar?
echoing phoenix and roger, yes!
The time travel stuff, and what happens in the vaccuum of Hitler stuff almost made me not answer because of headache questions...
I do not condone murder, or CP...
Knowing what Hitler was doing to Jewish people, and the horrors I now know--given the opportunity, I would have killed him. And, I would've accepted the consequences. The death of that one man could've saved millions.
i don't condone murder either. i grew up in a military family and in a military world. i myself am former miltary (usmc) . i run my company in a military fashion. i see things as black or white, no shades of gray. (except here at a2k) perhaps that's a blind side that i have, onesided thinking.
but i believe that certain people need to be done away with for the "greater good" of mankind.
in any case deb, this is a good discussion. glad you posted it.
Deb, sorry for getting into the time travel stuff.
My answer to the ethical question is that I'd have no problem killing him. I don't think it would be the right thing to do but I don't always do the right thing.
But my time travel thing is somewhat related. I was trying to illustrate that the simple creation of time travel changes history and thus Hitler might have his destiny altered. Simply being there would change the past and if the past is changed maybe the future (Hitler's Holocaust) would be avoided and he would not need to be killed.
I know that Craven. 'Twas silly to introduce time travel - I should have realised people would get caught up in it - just wanted to make it a stark ethical choice - (I mean no contemporary passions to cloud judgment.)
Do you know what I would LIKE to do? However, I would never have the courage..... I would LIKE to shoot him (greatest good to greatest number) - BUT I am very concerned about the whole idea of supporting the murder of leaders "we" do not like - eg Allende, Castro, Che - so, and I know this would, in relation to that concern, be a futile gesture - I would like to kill him, but stay, and be prosecuted, convicted and punished in a German court of that time for my crime. Because I would be a murderer.
Craven - why would you consider it not right? And why would you do it anyway?
Lash - you sound as though you think a little like me on this one! What do you mean by accepting the consequences, exactly?
Pueo - would you stay and be punished? Sigh...I guess that is a bit little kiddy, isn't it, as an idea....like when Jack says sorry to Ralph in "Lord of the Flies" for letting the signal fire go out, and expects this will make all right.....
It's not right because it would be illegal. Laws are the collective morality. Since I don't think it's fair for me to allow my own morality to supercede that of the majority I think it would be wrong.
If I get to define my own actions then anyone who has a "cause" would get to have a shot at defending theirs (terrorists, "freedom fighters" and the like).
But in the pure Hitler for Holocaust situation I'd take Hitler and while it would be right to stay and be prosecuted for the murder I'd come back to my time after having foretold of a great silly Bunny that would plague the earth.
I don't always do what's right. If the end is used to justify the means then the consequences are included in the logic. It'd be right to face the music but I'd run off laughing about the silly doe who would have stuck around to get shot.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
