Philosophical Vegan Forum

If you had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was a baby, would you do it?

I would. I know that there are two questions you might ask because of this:

How could you kill a baby? - Because if I didn't, I would have killed Anne Frank, all of her family, and all the Jews, Homosexuals, Disabled, Freemasons, Socialists, etc. who were killed in the Holocaust.

What if by killing Hitler, something worse happens? - I believe that this is highly unlikely. I do not think that anybody worse than Hitler could have risen to power in Germany and I believe that the Holocaust is unparalleled in the amount of evil and suffering that happened.

What do you think? Would you kill baby Hitler? Would it make a difference if you were certain a better world would come from it?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:46 pm What do you think? Would you kill baby Hitler?

No, because just going back in time and breathing would totally change the course of world history ("butterfly effect"), so there's no reason to believe World War One would happen, but less World War Two, or that that baby would become a genocidal maniac. He would probably have just been a mediocre artist.

Also, we know there were people about as bad as Hitler side by side with him, even if we assumed history would unfold similarly.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:46 pmWould it make a difference if you were certain a better world would come from it?

I guess, but just the fact that I traveled in time would probably render me unable to trust my own judgement. I'd probably assume I'd gone mad.

Too many "what ifs".

What if I kill baby hitler, then his parents have another child just like him, except maybe this one doesn't attack Russians in a Russian winter, or convinces his Japanese allies to not bomb America.

If you're going to kill babies, just do it for the love of killing babies, not to change history.

note- don't kill babies.

I would. I don't think it's likely that his parents would have another child prone to become an evil dictator. While the Nazi party still would have likely formed in response to the Treaty of Versailles destroying Germany's economy, they might not have risen to power without a spokesperson like Hitler who was unfortunately able to gain massive public support with his speeches.

I don't know man, you wouldn't wanna fuck with history.

If you do kill him, it might make the world better, or it could make it worse. Is that gamble really worth it?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:06 am I don't know man, you wouldn't wanna fuck with history.

If you do kill him, it might make the world better, or it could make it worse. Is that gamble really worth it?

Hitler killed millions of innocent people in the Holocaust and millions by starting a World War. We know that that's very bad, and I think it's unlikely that killing Hitler as a baby would lead to something worse. So, yes.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:34 am

Red wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:06 am I don't know man, you wouldn't wanna fuck with history.

If you do kill him, it might make the world better, or it could make it worse. Is that gamble really worth it?

Hitler killed millions of innocent people in the Holocaust and millions by starting a World War. We know that that's very bad, and I think it's unlikely that killing Hitler as a baby would lead to something worse. So, yes.

But how can you get an accurate statistic? Not to mention, that, hypothetically, you could save millions of people, but that could have an overall negative consequence, such as more harm to the environment, more meat consumption, etc. (Not saying that these will always happen, just in theory).

There have been many wars throughout history that have led to overall good things over time. It could be argued that The War of 1812 helped lead to the abolition of slavery in America (if it didn't happen, it'd likely would've been postponed).

No doubt, without Hitler, Europe (and the rest of the world) would not be the continent it is now. But how can you know if the world would be better or worse? You can't, you have to give it your best guess, which will be unreliable.

Of course, I might be grossly oversimplifying how this works, but I think it's good to keep in mind.

There is a meme I saw that suggests that it would be better to nurture and care for baby Hitler than to kill him. If I was going to intervene, I think this would be a better option than infanticide. I doubt that there is anything innate to Hitler which inclines him to leading genocidal regimes.

Red wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:57 pm

EquALLity wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:34 am

Red wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:06 am I don't know man, you wouldn't wanna fuck with history.

If you do kill him, it might make the world better, or it could make it worse. Is that gamble really worth it?

Hitler killed millions of innocent people in the Holocaust and millions by starting a World War. We know that that's very bad, and I think it's unlikely that killing Hitler as a baby would lead to something worse. So, yes.

But how can you get an accurate statistic? Not to mention, that, hypothetically, you could save millions of people, but that could have an overall negative consequence, such as more harm to the environment, more meat consumption, etc. (Not saying that these will always happen, just in theory).

There have been many wars throughout history that have led to overall good things over time. It could be argued that The War of 1812 helped lead to the abolition of slavery in America (if it didn't happen, it'd likely would've been postponed).

No doubt, without Hitler, Europe (and the rest of the world) would not be the continent it is now. But how can you know if the world would be better or worse? You can't, you have to give it your best guess, which will be unreliable.

Of course, I might be grossly oversimplifying how this works, but I think it's good to keep in mind.

Statistic?

So, you believe that millions of innocent people dying in the Holocaust and in the war was good, because it resulted in less people on the planet? If you believe that, then why are you against anti-natalism?

The reason why I would take the gamble is because the consequences of Hitler were so bad that they're very difficult to match, so it's unlikely the consequences of killing Hitler would match them.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:22 pm Statistic?

So, you believe that millions of innocent people dying in the Holocaust and in the war was good, because it resulted in less people on the planet? If you believe that, then why are you against anti-natalism?

That is not at all what I am saying.

I'm trying to say you don't know the consequences for sure. Maybe killing baby Hitler would lead to a better world, maybe a worse world, or maybe a world of equivalent value. You can't know these things unless you know all the factors, which is impossible even to the most diligent historian.

When I say statistic, I'm asking for the chances of how doing the deed would have a positive impact, and how you got to that statistic.

Maybe one of the Jews killed in the Holocaust would have been a genocidal dictator far surpassing Hitler to pay back the thousands of years of mistreatment. Is that true? We don't know.

I'm also trying to say that an action no matter how good it bad, may have positive or negative outcomes in the unforeseeable future.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:22 pmThe reason why I would take the gamble is because the consequences of Hitler were so bad that they're very difficult to match, so it's unlikely the consequences of killing Hitler would match them.

There have been much worse than Hitler.

You know, a lot of terrible things throughout history have shown us how bad they are, and that's why things like murder and rape have gone down, as we become a more civilized society. Now I lived most of my life in a world after, but from what I've been told, 9/11 changed the world, likely for the better AFAIK.

Now it would be great if we didn't need bad things to happen to learn from them, but men aren't angels, and there will always be something bad happening.

And I'll be sure to ask this if I have not, how do you know it's unlikely that nothing worse would happen? Is there any evidence of this? This is just an assumption. Maybe something worse will happen, maybe it won't.