Comments | qtheallpowerful: Here's a question

qtheallpowerful

Here's a question

Mar 17, 2009 21:32

May one go back in time and kill Hitler before the war?

If we were to throw out all SpaceTime Continuum issues, the question is doubly potent.

Discuss.

random, thinky, questions, i might be slightly crazy

Comments 10

reddwarfer March 18 2009, 02:12:12 UTC

I think that to change history is far too risky. Even if it's the worst of it. I'm a devil you know instead of a devil you don't type of girl. Moreover, I don't think the War was completely orchestrated by one man. I don't believe that all that evil generated from one being alone.

Given that, I do believe if one did go back in time and killed hilter, there would be a parallel existence created. Also, there's no telling that there wouldn't be a paradox created. If Person A killed Hitler, Person A may just be inadvertently assuring that they'd never be born.

qtheallpowerful March 18 2009, 03:05:44 UTC

Ah, but again, we are throwing TimeSpace Continuum issues aside, and in these are included History.

The question here is, is it moral to punish someone for doing something before they do it.

reddwarfer March 18 2009, 03:08:15 UTC

No.

qtheallpowerful March 18 2009, 03:09:35 UTC

Why? If you know he is going to go and kill millions of people?

Thread 5

the_feral_cat March 18 2009, 06:17:42 UTC

The example with Hitler has a flaw. No matter how you disregard SpaceTime Continuum issues, if one knew Hitler was going to play a major role in the extermination of millions of people and went ahead and killed him, this alters the course of history. Likewise, if one traveled back in time because they could in order to kill Hitler, knowing what he will do, this still changes history. The world would not be what it is today if Hitler had not done what he had done.

However, if your question is if it's moral to punish someone for doing something before they do it, my initial feeling is that it's not. One cannot know what someone is going to do until that person does it. Even if they tell you they're going to do it, you still do not know for certain they will go through with it. Therefore you can't punish someone if they haven't done anything. That would be equivalent to punishing someone just for thinking, and that is definitely morally unacceptable ( ... )

kate04us March 18 2009, 18:44:31 UTC

I have to agree with the_feral_cat. Although I hate what he did, I'm pretty sure that if someone went back in time to kill Hitler, someone else would have come up with an equally stupid idea. He has, after all, made us all pay more attention to what politicians do and say, thus making is less likely for something like that to happen again.

Call me crazy, but I believe that the universe or whatever you want to call it corrects things that aren't as they are supposed to be. So if someone went back to change history, this would somehow be 'corrected', even if the 'new history' would have been better in our opinion.

It's a very interesting question, though. Thanks for giving my brain something to do. *hugs*

suziq_phoenix March 19 2009, 00:24:40 UTC

No, haven't you read Stephen Fry's Making History??

qtheallpowerful May 3 2009, 21:10:26 UTC

I have not, but tis on my list.

Well, without the Space/Time Continuum issues, I'd say yes. jasonecaesar March 20 2009, 21:53:39 UTC

Whether or not one should would be an ethical problem. Would his death have prevented WWII or the holocaust? No, not likely. To have prevented that, the result of the outcome of World War I would have to have been radically changed and the League of Nations would have to have been stronger.