And another one - the "time travel" dilemma

[Slow Love™]

You have been projected backwards in time to Austria, 1891, into the nursery of a two-year old Adolph Hitler. You are armed with a handpistol. You have exactly ten seconds before you are propelled back to the present, and only you will be returned (ie, you can't take the child back with you).

Knowing that Hitler will grow up to be perhaps the most despised and monstrous world leader of the twentieth century, responsible for the holocaust and countless dead, wounded and homeless as a result of his world vision and supremacist ideals...

Do you kill the child?

[Hoggy31]

Yes

[Buddhmaster]

Fo sho

[James90]

Of course, what kind of stupid question is that

[FaaipDeOiad]

No. Hitler can't be blamed solely for the deaths of all those people, and killing him would likely not prevent them. And, killing someone to stop them from potentially killing other people (as opposed to self-defence) is immoral.

[BoyBrumby]

No. It's the paradox at the centre of time travel: consequence & causality. Germany may've had another fascist leader in Adolf's stead who was shrewd enough not to exile Germany's Jewish scientists & Nazi Germany may've got the Atom bomb first and won WW2.

[andyc]

no. because if you do, then maybe some other dictator will arise around the same time except this one will be better and he'll win and take over the world, and then i won't exist. although that then means i couldn't travel back in time to kill adolf, which means he'd live and then i'd come back into existence. wow, that's confusing

[andyc]

No. It's the paradox at the centre of time travel: consequence & causality. Germany may've had another fascist leader in Adolf's stead who was shrewd enough not to exile Germany's Jewish scientists & Nazi Germany may've got the Atom bomb first and won WW2.

great minds, boybrumby. great minds

[King_Ponting]

umm nah i wouldnt kill a child, morally wrong

[andyc]

if the whole consequence and casuality was not coming into account, i'd kill him in a heartbeat. or, take him back with me forward into time so he doesn't kill all those people and i can raise him as my pet.

[Burpey]

It's like those new age people say, "Everthing happens for a reason".

[luckyeddie]

Of course not.

Hitler was not 'born evil' - but he certainly acquired such traits by the time he left the army at the end of the first world war.

Let's assume that you DID top the tot. How do you know that his replacement later in life wouldn't turn out far, far worse? Perhaps someone a little less pedantic but just as evil, someone prepared to use appeasement for a couple of years longer - say, long enough for the German scientists to have developed the atomic bomb well before the end of the war?

[Slow Love™]

Let's assume that you DID top the tot. How do you know that his replacement later in life wouldn't turn out far, far worse? Perhaps someone a little less pedantic but just as evil, someone prepared to use appeasement for a couple of years longer - say, long enough for the German scientists to have developed the atomic bomb well before the end of the war?

Well, obviously it works both ways - you could have somebody who says "you know what, Goebbels, I'm sick of all your insane bulldust - get the hell out of my office". I don't know if talking about his "replacement" is necessarily an accurate way of looking at it though - taking Hitler out of the equation doesn't automatically mean we would be provided with an approximate simile.

While it's a valid argument to say that no one man controls history, articulations at crucial moments can definitely change it's course - both for better AND for worse.

[BoyBrumby]

Well, obviously it works both ways - you could have somebody who says "you know what, Goebbels, I'm sick of all your insane bulldust - get the hell out of my office". I don't know if talking about his "replacement" is necessarily an accurate way of looking at it though - taking Hitler out of the equation doesn't automatically mean we would be provided with an approximate simile.

While it's a valid argument to say that no one man controls history, articulations at crucial moments can definitely change it's course - both for better AND for worse.

By the by, as you're a Doctor Who fan I remember reading a novel based on Doctor Who called (I think) The Genesis of The Daleks when the Doctor was presented with a similar dilemma. By travelling back in time he could kill the Daleks' creator (whose name escapes me) & remove them once and for all.

He chose not to as I recall.

[luckyeddie]

By the by, as you're a Doctor Who fan I remember reading a novel based on Doctor Who called (I think) The Genesis of The Daleks when the Doctor was presented with a similar dilemma. By travelling back in time he could kill the Daleks' creator (whose name escapes me) & remove them once and for all.

He chose not to as I recall.

Davros?

As opposed to Stavros (Kkkhello mateypeeps. How are you innit?)