If God took out baby Hitler...

[Angel]

If you had the ability to predict the future, whether via time travel, calculating all of the variables (like metereologists do to predict weather), or posessing foreknowledge, would you take out Hitler at his infantile age?

In other words, if you knew that Hitler would kill before he killed and he would not change his mind from this, would it be moral to take him out before he killed?

[bjs]

No, I would not murder infant Hitler even if I was 100% sure of what he would do.

On the most basic level it is wrong to punish someone for something that they have not done (even if I know that they will do it).

Beyond that, what if I knew that after murdering Adolf Hitler as an infant, there would be another guy name Joe Hitler who would rise up and do basically the same things that Adolf did? Would I kill Joe, too? And if I murder Adolf and Joe, there would be this third guy name Bob who would…

Basically, how big of an atrocity am I willing to commit in order to prevent a different atrocity?

It seems to be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Either I refuse to kill Hitler while he was an infant, or I end up being worse than Hitler was.

[Filthy Tugboat]

No, I would not murder infant Hitler even if I was 100% sure of what he would do.

On the most basic level it is wrong to punish someone for something that they have not done (even if I know that they will do it).

It's not about punishment, it's about prevention.

Beyond that, what if I knew that after murdering Adolf Hitler as an infant, there would be another guy name Joe Hitler who would rise up and do basically the same things that Adolf did? Would I kill Joe, too? And if I murder Adolf and Joe, there would be this third guy name Bob who would…

I personally think killing the people that would eventually be a cause to World War two and the genocide of millions of men women and children would be a good thing, Moses is another example that certainly should have been stopped before he committed such heinous crimes against humanity.

Basically, how big of an atrocity am I willing to commit in order to prevent a different atrocity?

I don't understand how killing the people that would kill millions can be considered an atrocity. Your actions are saving millions of lives.

It seems to be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Either I refuse to kill Hitler while he was an infant, or I end up being worse than Hitler was.

It's a big stretch calling a man who killed everyone necessary to prevent the genocide of millions of people as being worse than the individuals committing genocide.

[Paradigm]

I don't understand how killing the people that would kill millions can be considered an atrocity. Your actions are saving millions of lives.

As a direct result of World War II we saw extraordinary advances in medicine and surgical procedures that could potentially save billions of lives in the long run. New farming techniques using satellites based on advances in aeronautical engineering that came about because of WWII provide food to support the lives of billions. Radiation therapy would be impossible without an understanding of radiation that came about because of WWII.

So, if in the long run Hitler saved billions of lives by committing a genocide against millions of lives, does that make him a hero?

[Deadclown]

I don't understand how killing the people that would kill millions can be considered an atrocity. Your actions are saving millions of lives.

As a direct result of World War II we saw extraordinary advances in medicine and surgical procedures that could potentially save billions of lives in the long run. New farming techniques using satellites based on advances in aeronautical engineering that came about because of WWII provide food to support the lives of billions. Radiation therapy would be impossible without an understanding of radiation that came about because of WWII.

So, if in the long run Hitler saved billions of lives by committing a genocide against millions of lives, does that make him a hero?

No.

The ends do not justify the means, and regardless, that was not the thought process taken by the individual.

One can have a war that provides advances in the manner in which you speak without having to commit systematic genocide. You would have to show that the advances would not have occurred eventually without Hitler's genocide, which is an impossible what if, or an argument from ignorance. It is not unreasonable however to assume that science would have figured such things out eventually. Science is pretty good at figuring things out. WWII just had us figure those particular things out more quickly.

[Filthy Tugboat]

I don't understand how killing the people that would kill millions can be considered an atrocity. Your actions are saving millions of lives.

As a direct result of World War II we saw extraordinary advances in medicine and surgical procedures that could potentially save billions of lives in the long run. New farming techniques using satellites based on advances in aeronautical engineering that came about because of WWII provide food to support the lives of billions. Radiation therapy would be impossible without an understanding of radiation that came about because of WWII.

There is no reason to assume that without World War Two, none of these advancements would have happened. Unless you want to make an argument to show that.

So, if in the long run Hitler saved billions of lives by committing a genocide against millions of lives, does that make him a hero?

He certainly did not save billions of lives anymore than every other person in history existing. Things happen, as a result we are where we are today, that doesn't make every individual in history equally responsible for the advancements made since those people existed.

[Paradigm]

There is no reason to assume that without World War Two, none of these advancements would have happened. Unless you want to make an argument to show that.

There is similarly no reason to assume that with baby Hitler dead some other schmuk wouldn't have come along and leveraged German anti-semitism in the same way. Maybe with Hitler gone the guy who takes his place is even worse, and even more millions die. Then killing baby Hitler doesn't save anyone. It just makes you a murderer.

He certainly did not save billions of lives anymore than every other person in history existing. Things happen, as a result we are where we are today, that doesn't make every individual in history equally responsible for the advancements made since those people existed.

Your argument for killing baby Hitler is that in the long run it will save millions of lives, but you have no way of knowing that. What if one of the millions that Hitler killed would have sired a child who would grow up to start a nuclear war that ended the human race? What if the lessons humanity learned from the holocaust were valuable enough that we don't let it happen at a later time when it would have cost billions of lives?

Since you don't know what the ultimate result of your actions is, you can't say "Your actions are saving millions of lives" the most you can say with certainty is that your actions are taking the life of a child.

[Paradigm]

No.

The ends do not justify the means,

Exactly. Which is why killing baby Hitler is wrong, regardless of what ends you think it may accomplish.

and regardless, that was not the thought process taken by the individual.

Yes it was. He was saying that the end (stopping the holocaust) justifies the means (killing a baby)

One can have a war that provides advances in the manner in which you speak without having to commit systematic genocide. You would have to show that the advances would not have occurred eventually without Hitler's genocide, which is an impossible what if, or an argument from ignorance.

Arguing that killing baby Hitler would save millions of lives is an argument from ignorance. Speculating on the ultimate effects of killing a baby over the entire course of history is an impossible what if. That is rather my point. One person can speculate that killing baby Hitler will save lives, another can speculate the opposite.

It is not unreasonable however to assume that science would have figured such things out eventually. Science is pretty good at figuring things out. WWII just had us figure those particular things out more quickly.

Suppose that a surgical procedure that was available more quickly because of WWII saves the life of someone whose grandson becomes a political leader brings about peace in the middle east, etc...

Since we don't know what the ultimate effect is, the most we can say with certainty is that killing a baby takes the life of a baby. Whether it ultimately saves lives or costs lives is unknowable.

[Cathar1950]

I see a small mistake in thinking. Hitler was not the problem he thought he was a solution and had he not come along someone would have as he had many that followed him and many that disagreed. Maybe some one worse would have showed up to "solve" problems.
I would think the first world war had as much to do with Hitler and Germany as any birth of a baby.
The means justifies the ends.

[Filthy Tugboat]

There is no reason to assume that without World War Two, none of these advancements would have happened. Unless you want to make an argument to show that.

There is similarly no reason to assume that with baby Hitler dead some other schmuk wouldn't have come along and leveraged German anti-semitism in the same way. Maybe with Hitler gone the guy who takes his place is even worse, and even more millions die. Then killing baby Hitler doesn't save anyone. It just makes you a murderer.

Which is exactly why I never said in this post that killing just baby Hitler would be a good thing to do. I have maintained the position that you should kill every person that encouraged the holocaust.

He certainly did not save billions of lives anymore than every other person in history existing. Things happen, as a result we are where we are today, that doesn't make every individual in history equally responsible for the advancements made since those people existed.

Your argument for killing baby Hitler is that in the long run it will save millions of lives, but you have no way of knowing that.

My posts in this thread have been under the pretense that I would know that killing everyone that would perpetrate and/or encourage the holocaust would prevent the holocaust from occurring.

What if one of the millions that Hitler killed would have sired a child who would grow up to start a nuclear war that ended the human race? What if the lessons humanity learned from the holocaust were valuable enough that we don't let it happen at a later time when it would have cost billions of lives?

You could justify any action with a what if argument. What if raping that girl will prevent her from contracting an STD from somebody else because of the fear you instilled in her. What if that family you ran over were terrorists? These what if's are meaningless.

Since you don't know what the ultimate result of your actions is, you can't say "Your actions are saving millions of lives" the most you can say with certainty is that your actions are taking the life of a child.

But again, my comments have been under the pretense that I did know this. And I thought the notion that I would kill everyone necessary to prevent the holocaust was a good indication that i knew what was necessary to prevent the holocaust.

[Deadclown]

Exactly. Which is why killing baby Hitler is wrong, regardless of what ends you think it may accomplish.

I never claimed that my Hitler baby killing would be a moral action or that I would feel no guilt. If you actually read my posts, I made clear it was quite the opposite. You were trying to justify Hitler's actions and ask if he was a hero. Please do not twist my words. It is dishonest.

Arguing that killing baby Hitler would save millions of lives is an argument from ignorance. Speculating on the ultimate effects of killing a baby over the entire course of history is an impossible what if. That is rather my point. One person can speculate that killing baby Hitler will save lives, another can speculate the opposite.

You obviously did not read my post response to the OP. I recommend that you do so. I made it quite clear that the only circumstances leading to baby Hitler kiling involved absolute knowledge to avoid the argument from ignorance. So your point, is pointless.

Suppose that a surgical procedure that was available more quickly because of WWII saves the life of someone whose grandson becomes a political leader brings about peace in the middle east, etc...

Since we don't know what the ultimate effect is, the most we can say with certainty is that killing a baby takes the life of a baby. Whether it ultimately saves lives or costs lives is unknowable.

Yep. I suggest reading my response before acting like you are saying something novel.