Would it be moral to kill Hitler in 1932?

[davesteve]

Dr Z. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying, that because you see society acting as if life is not that valuable, murdering a guy you think might do bad things is justified. (it's only the life of a worthless man)

Isn't that just condoning what Hitler actually thought. That Jews were inferior beings that did not deserve to live, so we'll just kill 'em all. (it's only the lives of worthless people)

You seem to have worked yourself around to wanting to kill someone you hate...but agree with.

 

[Treedbear]

Eh, murder is always wrong, it's just that there are certain rare circumstances in which not killing is more bad than killing. This is not one of those times. Killing either Trump or Hitler would not actually make anything better and could make things worse.

Let's agree to disagree. This idea that all life is sacred is laughably stupid, considering how we spend public funds. We don't think all life is sacred. So many people die of easily preventable measures. We just don't give a fuck about them. Butility when it comes to killing criminals we suddenly go all high and mighty. I don't get it

If you can save 10 lives by ending one, then killing the one person is the less bad choice, not a good choice. I don't think this view should be all that controversial.

First off I agree with Underseer but I'd add that killing can be wrongful and yet not immoral. But immoral killing is always wrongful and is pretty much the definition of the word murder.

Second, if sacred means that it must be protected at all costs then any one individual or group of individual lives may under the right circumstances be sacrificed if on balance it is for the greater good. Human lives are not sacred. Human life is.

Third, you can't justify killing one person if it saves 10 or 100 without considering all the costs/benefits and for all those effected including for future generations in each case. We don't sacrifice one life in order to harvest the organs for other people who would die without them. It should be easy to see why. Hint: see The Island (2005 film)

 

[James Brown]

How do we know that the 20th-century tyrant wasn't killed before he could begin conquering the Earth, and that Hitler was the 2nd-rate replacement who stepped into the power vacuum and was defeated?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Today we have a similar situation. Trump is pretty much running on the same platform as Hitler did. He also seems to be about as crazy and narcissistic. Also... he might actually win the American election.

The question is, if killing Hitler would be moral, does that mean it would moral to kill Trump now.

Thoughts?

Was Hitler viewed as a buffoon and blip on the radar at the time he was first coming into power, or was he always taken seriously? I do know he was rejected from art school...

Hard to say. He was more laughed at than Trump. But then again there was different media coverage then. All the other parties thought it was beneath them and pandering to do radio. Trump is a reality TV star.

BTW, Hitler's stylist tried to get him to lose the 'stach. Even then they thought he looked like a buffoon. He thought it made him come across as less threatening and homely. Trump has his bad hair.

I think you could argue they're basically cloned.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr Z. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying, that because you see society acting as if life is not that valuable, murdering a guy you think might do bad things is justified. (it's only the life of a worthless man)

Isn't that just condoning what Hitler actually thought. That Jews were inferior beings that did not deserve to live, so we'll just kill 'em all. (it's only the lives of worthless people)

You seem to have worked yourself around to wanting to kill someone you hate...but agree with.

At heart I'm a pragmatist. If killing Trump might save us from a third world war against Russia and the Islamic world, one little bullet to the head is a small price to pay. I am serious. Trump is saying all the wrong words. That stuff needs to be taken seriously. I couldn't think of a more obvious candidate for Hitler 2.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The best argument I can think of against killing Trump is that I don't want violence to be part of the political process. It was precisely this shift in public opinion that led to the fall of the Roman Republic. If killing him is the start of a pattern we all know the liberals will lose.

 

[davesteve]

Wasn't this all the problem with Bush and Cheney and their HUGE mistake?
If we can just kill Saddam H., everything will be better....well it isn't....and it basically created ISIS.
You can't kill your way to peace, although we keep trying.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wasn't this all the problem with Bush and Cheney and their HUGE mistake?
If we can just kill Saddam H., everything will be better....well it isn't....and it basically created ISIS.
You can't kill your way to peace, although we keep trying.

I think the pre-Sepoys rebellion British created ISIS. The Muslim counter reaction to British (extreme) bad behaviour and religious incensitivity created that which we today identify as militant Islam. Everything just follows from that really. When the British dropped the ball the Americans picked it up. And now we're now.

 

[DBT]

Wasn't this all the problem with Bush and Cheney and their HUGE mistake?
If we can just kill Saddam H., everything will be better....well it isn't....and it basically created ISIS.
You can't kill your way to peace, although we keep trying.

With our illustrious leaders, it's always the easy fix. Never address the underlying problems, never consider options that may take time and care, just ban this, ban that... or all else fails shoot em dead. The Hollywood Hero, Action Man mind set. Expediency at any cost, as long as the consequences don't emerge before the next election.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wasn't this all the problem with Bush and Cheney and their HUGE mistake?
If we can just kill Saddam H., everything will be better....well it isn't....and it basically created ISIS.
You can't kill your way to peace, although we keep trying.

Of course we can. I believe the only way to peace is having one player so powerful the others don't stand a chance. The reason why the 20'th century is the most peaceful in human history* is only because USA is so disproportionately militarily powerful. Thankfully Russia and China are still fuck-ups. So this situation will continue for a while longer.

*Yes, even if we include WW1 and WW2. Which is a depressing thought.

 

[fast]

Many definitions can vary substantially enough to a point where the only way to decipher the meaning, is to ask for an individual's definition.

The meaning (that is, the lexical meaning) of terms are a function of how they are collectively (not individually!) used by fluent speakers of a language. When you say one thing and mean something else by the words you use, what those words mean continue to mean just what they do no matter what you might mean by your individual use of them.

When you speak of deciphering meaning, don't confuse "what is meant" with "what it means." When a child traveling through a zoo points to a zebra and says, "ooh, mommy, look at the horse," we can easily comprehend the confusion and know is meant (that is, know what is meant by what is said), but we ought not ourselves mistakingly think that the meaning of the words have changed by their individual usage of them. The word, "zebra" continues to mean just what it did before the child entered the zoo, and ... if you decipher what I might mean by what I say (which ain't always easy ), then recognize that determining what is meant (by what is said) can be substantially different than what is said means.

The truth of whether a cat is on a mat does not change by someone's peculiar use of the term, "cat," and the truth about whether killing someone is always wrong does not hinge on what either of us cast as our own personal definitions of "moral."

Yes, learn what people mean by what they say, but don't be-a-thinkin' that the truth of what is said is a reflection of what is meant.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Of course we can. I believe the only way to peace is having one player so powerful the others don't stand a chance. The reason why the 20'th century is the most peaceful in human history* is only because USA is so disproportionately militarily powerful. Thankfully Russia and China are still fuck-ups. So this situation will continue for a while longer.

*Yes, even if we include WW1 and WW2. Which is a depressing thought.

I suppose its just coincidence that WW2 ended with the availability of nuclear weapons and the reality of mutually assured destruction. Today that defines who is a "player". And essentially all players have become "so powerful the others don't stand a chance". That's why we've had peace (between the players that is).

 

[DrZoidberg]

...
Of course we can. I believe the only way to peace is having one player so powerful the others don't stand a chance. The reason why the 20'th century is the most peaceful in human history* is only because USA is so disproportionately militarily powerful. Thankfully Russia and China are still fuck-ups. So this situation will continue for a while longer.

*Yes, even if we include WW1 and WW2. Which is a depressing thought.

I suppose its just coincidence that WW2 ended with the availability of nuclear weapons and the reality of mutually assured destruction. Today that defines who is a "player". And essentially all players have become "so powerful the others don't stand a chance". That's why we've had peace (between the players that is).

When WW2 ended USA had a monopoly on the atomic bomb. You've got to explain why USA didn't just go on. The reason should be obvious. USA had already the strongest market and economy. Ie they had the strongest incentive to keep world markets open. Which is what is still happening. It's not just USA, it's the entire West. If Russia or China would have had a nuclear bomb monopoly, they would most likely have made another calculation, disadvantaged of peace

 

[Treedbear]

I suppose its just coincidence that WW2 ended with the availability of nuclear weapons and the reality of mutually assured destruction. Today that defines who is a "player". And essentially all players have become "so powerful the others don't stand a chance". That's why we've had peace (between the players that is).

When WW2 ended USA had a monopoly on the atomic bomb. You've got to explain why USA didn't just go on. The reason should be obvious. USA had already the strongest market and economy. Ie they had the strongest incentive to keep world markets open. Which is what is still happening. It's not just USA, it's the entire West. If Russia or China would have had a nuclear bomb monopoly, they would most likely have made another calculation, disadvantaged of peace

You're appealing to rationality. When countries go to war it's for really stupid reasons. Even if there is some economic gain to be had. But countries are never satisfied with what they have within their borders, and it seems that the USA is no different. In the long run the only thing that holds back our hubris is MAD. In fact in the case of Iran its primarily a matter of keeping them from getting the bomb. And currently with China we seem less concerned about the relative strength of our economy and more about how aggressive they act militarily.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When WW2 ended USA had a monopoly on the atomic bomb. You've got to explain why USA didn't just go on. The reason should be obvious. USA had already the strongest market and economy. Ie they had the strongest incentive to keep world markets open. Which is what is still happening. It's not just USA, it's the entire West. If Russia or China would have had a nuclear bomb monopoly, they would most likely have made another calculation, disadvantaged of peace

You're appealing to rationality. When countries go to war it's for really stupid reasons. Even if there is some economic gain to be had. But countries are never satisfied with what they have within their borders, and it seems that the USA is no different. In the long run the only thing that holds back our hubris is MAD. In fact in the case of Iran its primarily a matter of keeping them from getting the bomb. And currently with China we seem less concerned about the relative strength of our economy and more about how aggressive they act militarily.

Don't agree. There is a kind of wisdom of crowds. A leader, no matter how charismatic, can never force a population to do anything they don't, at least partly, support. If we analyse any war, the root causes are often something quite mundane and concrete. A smart leader will exploit the zeitgeist and put on whatever costume or pretence is necessary and be made a figurehead of the movement. But he can never truly control the crowd. A lot of dictators, who do this, and who just talked shit, end up being trapped into tyranny. There's many many examples. Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini... come to think of it,... pretty much all dictators who have ever lived. Can't think of a single one that was free to do just whatever. He was always a prisoner in some gilded cage or another.

A very common cause of war is a perceived unfairness in how resources are distributed. Again... isn't this all of them? I'm worrying that I might have forgotten something here?

 

[Treedbear]

You're appealing to rationality. When countries go to war it's for really stupid reasons. Even if there is some economic gain to be had. But countries are never satisfied with what they have within their borders, and it seems that the USA is no different. In the long run the only thing that holds back our hubris is MAD. In fact in the case of Iran its primarily a matter of keeping them from getting the bomb. And currently with China we seem less concerned about the relative strength of our economy and more about how aggressive they act militarily.

Don't agree. There is a kind of wisdom of crowds. A leader, no matter how charismatic, can never force a population to do anything they don't, at least partly, support. If we analyse any war, the root causes are often something quite mundane and concrete. A smart leader will exploit the zeitgeist and put on whatever costume or pretence is necessary and be made a figurehead of the movement. But he can never truly control the crowd. A lot of dictators, who do this, and who just talked shit, end up being trapped into tyranny. There's many many examples. Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini... come to think of it,... pretty much all dictators who have ever lived. Can't think of a single one that was free to do just whatever. He was always a prisoner in some gilded cage or another.

A very common cause of war is a perceived unfairness in how resources are distributed. Again... isn't this all of them? I'm worrying that I might have forgotten something here?

Wisdom of the crowds is a good way to tell how many jelly beans are in a jar, but not when it comes to foreign policy. I'm thinking of the call to patriotism preceding the Iraq war, the appeals to "support our troops" and not "letting them have died in vain" as the way to keep us there, McCain stating that "we are all Georgians" when Russia went after South Ossetia, "Remember the Maine", etc, etc. There is such a lack of involvement by the populace that it can be treated as entertainment that fades into the background and only gets brought up when someone in Congress suggests cutting back on military spending. There's a lot of voters who can be counted on in the US and Russia, and it seems probably China, to demand a show of force as a matter of national pride. Its only because a few in Congress still remember lessons of the Cuban missal crisis that all out wars have been avoided.

 

[fromderinside]

Originally Posted by fromderinsideLeaving aside what makes societies come to different answers are there common threads leading to each conclusion. I suspect there are such threads although I've never taken the time to determine what they might be. So all I can say is look at societies that have different practices regarding taking life and find general attributes that lead them kill or spare members. From that you will have an operational basis upon which to decide your own general rule.

Don't agree at all. For example. Islamic countries do more corporal punishment than prisons ... are way cheaper ..... In the west we seem to view prisons as a kind of resort ... But it's an incredibly cruel punishment. Inmates often develop PTSD and all manner of long-term psychological wounds .... It's just an all-round idiotic way of punishing anybody. ...

I think every society sits on a high horse and tell themselves that their way of punishing criminals is the best and most humane. And they tell themselves that their society is the pinnacle of civilization and the other one's just don't get it... and why are they so cruel and uncivilized. It's chauvinism. Nobody seems to actually care about how to create the most pragmatic system of punishment, (if the goal is to deter crime).

Still from your post I find common threads ..... Islamic countries do more corporal punishment than prisons ....are way cheaper ...in the west wrongdoers are sent to prisons which isolate lead to PTSD .... all societies sit on high horses thinking they are the best and most humane.

So spirit, physicality, isolation, physical damage are all common elements in your view for removing from society and sending message to society. Good.

Are these the same elements an individual should use when making a decision to take life?

Yeah, at a visceral level.

So decisions to punish, kill, are made in socially consistent ways to protect societies and set barriers for others is the answer to my
question about finding operational grounds for killing.

See. We do agree there are commonalities, but, I tend to bias toward them being actually religious grounds rather than rational grounds.

My goal is to eliminate because its good and go with it is useful (socially and individually) which seems to be hidden in your post as well.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't agree at all. For example. Islamic countries do more corporal punishment than prisons ... are way cheaper ..... In the west we seem to view prisons as a kind of resort ... But it's an incredibly cruel punishment. Inmates often develop PTSD and all manner of long-term psychological wounds .... It's just an all-round idiotic way of punishing anybody. ...

I think every society sits on a high horse and tell themselves that their way of punishing criminals is the best and most humane. And they tell themselves that their society is the pinnacle of civilization and the other one's just don't get it... and why are they so cruel and uncivilized. It's chauvinism. Nobody seems to actually care about how to create the most pragmatic system of punishment, (if the goal is to deter crime).

Still from your post I find common threads ..... Islamic countries do more corporal punishment than prisons ....are way cheaper ...in the west wrongdoers are sent to prisons which isolate lead to PTSD .... all societies sit on high horses thinking they are the best and most humane.

So spirit, physicality, isolation, physical damage are all common elements in your view for removing from society and sending message to society. Good.

Are these the same elements an individual should use when making a decision to take life?

Yeah, at a visceral level.

So decisions to punish, kill, are made in socially consistent ways to protect societies and set barriers for others is the answer to my
question about finding operational grounds for killing.

See. We do agree there are commonalities, but, I tend to bias toward them being actually religious grounds rather than rational grounds.

My goal is to eliminate because its good and go with it is useful (socially and individually) which seems to be hidden in your post as well.

I'm not arguing the Sharia is the way to go as far as penal codes go. I just mentioned one thing that we stopped doing because we thought it was barbaric, only to replace it with something even more barbaric.

 

[ronburgundy]

.... for the only relevant definition is a function of how it's collectively used by fluent speakers of the English language.

Many definitions can vary substantially enough to a point where the only way to decipher the meaning, is to ask for an individual's definition. Obviously, if two people are using the same word and they have different definitions, miscommunication results.
In this case, I could have assumed that your definition was the same as mine and just replied, "You are wrong."
Individual definition ALWAYS matters once a conversation reaches a certain point of detail. It has to, or the whole concept of communication falls apart. Many arguments can be quickly resolved with a quick definition check, so I reject the notion that it is irrelevant. How many times do you hear people say, "Oh ! I thought you meant blah blahblah." Happens about... billions of times a day, I would guess.

So, a guy just pushed a button and murdered 90% of all living people and now has his finger on a button that will murder all remaining living persons including you and himself. You killing him is the only possible way to prevent him from murdering every living person.

What definition of "moral" wouldn't make this a morally acceptable act, if not even a morally required act?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Many definitions can vary substantially enough to a point where the only way to decipher the meaning, is to ask for an individual's definition. Obviously, if two people are using the same word and they have different definitions, miscommunication results.
In this case, I could have assumed that your definition was the same as mine and just replied, "You are wrong."
Individual definition ALWAYS matters once a conversation reaches a certain point of detail. It has to, or the whole concept of communication falls apart. Many arguments can be quickly resolved with a quick definition check, so I reject the notion that it is irrelevant. How many times do you hear people say, "Oh ! I thought you meant blah blahblah." Happens about... billions of times a day, I would guess.

So, a guy just pushed a button and murdered 90% of all living people and now has his finger on a button that will murder all remaining living persons including you and himself. You killing him is the only possible way to prevent him from murdering every living person.

What definition of "moral" wouldn't make this a morally acceptable act, if not even a morally required act?

Moral absolutism? Any moral school of thought that isn't, in some regard, relativistic.