• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

And another one - the "time travel" dilemma

Slow Love™

International Captain
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?
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
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

Englishman
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
BoyBrumby said:
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
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
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™

International Captain
luckyeddie said:
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

Englishman
Slow Love™ said:
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
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?)
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
luckyeddie said:
Davros?

As opposed to Stavros (Kkkhello mateypeeps. How are you innit?)
I think you may be right. I was thinking of Stavros, but thought there's no way it could be that! :D
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
BoyBrumby said:
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.
Yeah, he did. I think he took a third way and sabotaged their development to delay their progress.

Interestingly though, a later Doctor intentionally tricked Davros into nuking his own planet, thus destroying the entire race (other than a few strays I guess). But that particular Doctor (and the writers at the time) really sucked.
 

PY

International Coach
Dasa said:
Nope. I like my life as it is.
What about the other people who don't like their lives, or lost people in the war or people who didn't get to live the life you like so much?

I agree with not doing it, but your reasoning is a little off IMO (I apologise profusely if I've mis-understood you but you've made it sound like you're putting forward a 'all is well that ends well' argument which is fine except when you speak to people who experienced the war first hand).

The only other way I can see your reasoning is that your life would be damaged by the moral implications of what you'd have done?
 
Last edited:

The Baconator

International Vice-Captain
I wouldn't kill him, like other people have said an even worse replacement could arise, or something else could happen leaving a very different world when you travel back to the present day.
 

Top