Would it be moral to kill Hitler in 1932?

[sdelsolray]

You assume killing Hitler would have changed history and made it less harmful. Perhaps it would. Perhaps a more harmful history would have occurred.

I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[untermensche]

If Hitler's killed before he arises to power many of us might not be here.

Maybe none of us would be here.

A whole different humanity.

 

[Treedbear]

...

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

Thoughts?

How about now that President Obama has stated that Trump is unfit to be President?

In perhaps his strongest language condemning the Republican presidential nominee, President Barack Obama said Tuesday that Donald Trump is "unfit to serve as president" because he lacks the temperament for the job and "doesn't appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues."

Speaking at a joint press conference with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the president said his assessment that Trump is "woefully unprepared" for the Oval Office has nothing to do with partisan politics: "There have been Republican [presidential candidates] with whom I disagreed with," Obama said, "but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president."

I haven't heard any historians cite a similar instance of such a statement. It's simply extraordinary. What happened to no-drama-Obama? He goes on to make it clear that Trump would be a threat to the security of our nation.

Since the President is the leader of the nation, how is a patriotic citizen supposed to interpret this? And it's not that I don't agree with him. But as he explained, this issue is above partisan politics. He's ostensibly trying to convince Republicans to drop their support for Trump, but, as some in this forum have pointed out, that might not be what the Clinton campaign is hoping for. She wants to run against him. So is the USA now facing an existential threat?

My own interpretation is possibly yes. But if we elect Trump it would simply confirm that the country is beyond hope already.

 

[DBT]

killing people as a way of solving problems sets a bad precedent and is a poor example to our children, reinforcing the idea of capital punishment and execution as a worthwhile, expedient and fitting means to an end.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How about now that President Obama has stated that Trump is unfit to be President?

In perhaps his strongest language condemning the Republican presidential nominee, President Barack Obama said Tuesday that Donald Trump is "unfit to serve as president" because he lacks the temperament for the job and "doesn't appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues."

Speaking at a joint press conference with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the president said his assessment that Trump is "woefully unprepared" for the Oval Office has nothing to do with partisan politics: "There have been Republican [presidential candidates] with whom I disagreed with," Obama said, "but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president."

I haven't heard any historians cite a similar instance of such a statement. It's simply extraordinary. What happened to no-drama-Obama? He goes on to make it clear that Trump would be a threat to the security of our nation.

Since the President is the leader of the nation, how is a patriotic citizen supposed to interpret this? And it's not that I don't agree with him. But as he explained, this issue is above partisan politics. He's ostensibly trying to convince Republicans to drop their support for Trump, but, as some in this forum have pointed out, that might not be what the Clinton campaign is hoping for. She wants to run against him. So is the USA now facing an existential threat?

My own interpretation is possibly yes. But if we elect Trump it would simply confirm that the country is beyond hope already.

Of course it's a partisan statement. Of course Obama wants Hillary to win. I'm sure that is why he made the statement. It might also be true. But still partisan.

 

[Treedbear]

... But as he explained, this issue is above partisan politics. He's ostensibly trying to convince Republicans to drop their support for Trump, but, as some in this forum have pointed out, that might not be what the Clinton campaign is hoping for. She wants to run against him. So is the USA now facing an existential threat?
...

Of course it's a partisan statement. Of course Obama wants Hillary to win. I'm sure that is why he made the statement. It might also be true. But still partisan.

Interesting. I guess we need to define partisan better as it applies in this case. I think it is partisan from the standpoint of the Trump campaign and its supporters. But Obama is trying to establish a debate among the traditional, establishment, GOP supporters from the standpoint that the former is an aberration. He is trying to elevate his comments above partisanship on the argument that they have common ground with the Democrat's goal of defeating Trump because he is unqualified and dangerous to the nation. This is his premise, and it's based on their continuous need to distance themselves from their candidate's policies and positions, not as some kind of ploy to elect Hillary.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course it's a partisan statement. Of course Obama wants Hillary to win. I'm sure that is why he made the statement. It might also be true. But still partisan.

Interesting. I guess we need to define partisan better as it applies in this case. I think it is partisan from the standpoint of the Trump campaign and its supporters. But Obama is trying to establish a debate among the traditional, establishment, GOP supporters from the standpoint that the former is an aberration. He is trying to elevate his comments above partisanship on the argument that they have common ground with the Democrat's goal of defeating Trump because he is unqualified and dangerous to the nation. This is his premise, and it's based on their continuous need to distance themselves from their candidate's policies and positions, not as some kind of ploy to elect Hillary.

Yes, he is trying to give the impression that this is above partisanship. It's still partisanship. It can't not be when coming from his lips. I think he saw an opening and went for it.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Yes, he is trying to give the impression that this is above partisanship. It's still partisanship. It can't not be when coming from his lips. I think he saw an opening and went for it.

Ye of little faith.

 

[jimrich]

morality

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?

I'm not sure how moral fits here but, I believe a lot of folks would have killed Hitler IF they had known how much damage the Nazi's were eventually going to do. As for Trump, who knows if he will be as bad as Hitler or even worse. Hitler did not do all that damage ALONE. He has a huge array of willing and eager partners. Does Trump have such an evil set of companions?

 

[iolo]

Why, if all these nutters have all these guns to preserve 'freedom' is Trump still out there ranting? Probably the US is doomed anyway, but why rush it?