No paradox at all. Hitler should have been killed or his parents so he never existed. Sure you would not exist, but the utilitarian point of view supersedes the individual right to existence. Think about this- if it wasn't for WW2, we would not have had the man-made self destruction and the regression of civilization since then. Remember the Allied effort, both from Russia, China, and the West to destroy the evil forces that were destroying life on a grand scale...countries from all over the world united to stamp out the Axis powers..instead of continuing this effort and world peace, the Allies started thinking about future aggressions and everything shifted to the Cold War mentality...think of the TRILLIONS of dollars spent on weapons and training for people, governments and nations to continue to develop better methods of killing each other and how that money could have been better spent on development of civilization in general...imagine not having to pay for fuel, medical care, insurance, utilities...no crime....all countries at peace within and without...this utopia will never exist as in my opinion- greed and corruption and our hedonistic pleasures show us to be one step above animals. What will it take for peace and prosperity throughout the world? Even if there was a worldwide threat, it would be every man/country for himself and we would not unite as a world to help each other. We are all just a bunch of animals living on borrowed time. I'm sure there would have been another person like Hitler to come along too, so it would have happened sooner or later.
Originally posted by SoothfastHitler's rise, with all its manifold and appaling consequences, was probably the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole course of human history. So while we can't know that the alternative would have been been better, we can hazard a bloody good guess.
I wouldn't shoot Hitler if handed a time machine and a gun, even assuming it were possible. We cannot know if Hitler's rise was really the worst thing that could have happened at the time. An alternate future may see a thermonuclear holocaust occurring in the 1960s, say, or a Europe overrun by Stalin.
EDIT: I see others have already brought this issue up.
Stalin was only able to overrun half of Europe because the Western powers had been obliged to depend on his help to defeat Hitler and were in no position to rebuff his demands. Without the rise of Hitler, Communism would probably have been confined behind the Carpathians.
Originally posted by TeinosukeHitler's rise was a consequence of the Great War, the loss of Kaiser Wilhelm, the inevitable nationalistic fervour within Germany.. The Versailles Treaty saw to that, the Allies demanded war 'penalties' far beyond Germany's worth and the people starved and revolted. Hitler was one of a number and a political doctrine sweeping vast swathes of Europe, the rise of Fascism. Lessons learned from WWI, little, 'we' affectively created the monster and, until he turned his eye to Russia, he almost succeeded.
Hitler's rise, with all its manifold and appaling consequences, was probably the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole course of human history. So while we can't know that the alternative would have been been better, we can hazard a bloody good guess.
Stalin was only able to overrun half of Europe because the Western powers had b ...[text shortened]... ithout the rise of Hitler, Communism would probably have been confined behind the Carpathians.
Originally posted by stokerI would have shot Hitler on the spot! As Star Trek's Mr. Spock once said: " If one were to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one" Thankfully you did not have to make that decision!
a paradox.. my parents met in the war now if i went back in time shot hitler 1938, chances are they would never have met, but i would save millions, but not be born?? would you if you were in that spot would you shoot hiltler.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI always felt a great degree of sadness for Neville Chamberlain, 'peace in our time' declared upon reaching the supposed Czechoslovakia deal to keep Anglo-German interests entirely mutual and never to see war between 'our two peoples again'...there was even a naval alliance agreed. Hitler assumed, months later, that the waffen SS facade of Polish aggression would be enough to keep the British from investigating further.Churchill however, had other ideas and the chaos theory took route overnight..Chamberlain resigned a wounded man, one from which plagued him and some historians suggest it led to his early death..he was good man, he wanted peace at all costs and fought hard for it but never lived to see Hitler's just deserts. A pact with Hitler was not worth the paper it was written on, he conned everyone.
Adolf Hitler assumed Anglo-Saxons would support him for cultural reasons. Since the English and associated nations did the right thing and opposed him he had no chance.
EDIT: Suggestions were made that the Dunkirk evacuation was a 'second chance' offered from Hitler to the British, after all his main battle force were at the gates of the town, sat waiting for permission to annihilate the Expeditionary force..this was later proven erroneous, Goering had expressly asked to 'finish them off with my air force'...he failed but was still quite happy to continue painting his nails lol.
Originally posted by TeinosukeI think a nuclear war would be worse. Billions killed, the near destruction of the biosphere, the whole bit. If we fiddle with history by removing Hitler, one might in fact occur in the alternate timeline. Humanity came very close on more than one occasion in the 20th century. So while it's fashionable to posit that nothing is "worse than Hitler," in the present analysis that cannot be granted as being even moderately probable.
Hitler's rise, with all its manifold and appaling consequences, was probably the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole course of human history. So while we can't know that the alternative would have been been better, we can hazard a bloody good guess.
Stalin was only able to overrun half of Europe because the Western powers had b ...[text shortened]... ithout the rise of Hitler, Communism would probably have been confined behind the Carpathians.
Its funny how nobody actually wanted to tackle the moral dilemma directly.
The question is:
Given the chance to save millions in exchange for your life would you willingly give up your life. This is a special case in which 'your life' includes not only your future, but your whole existence.
I do get the qualification that everyone is going for ie:
Unless you can be sure that you will really save millions, it is not worth the risk.
So what if you are sure? And how sure would you have to be?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe level of certainty required aught to be proportional to the level of damage caused if wrong.
Its funny how nobody actually wanted to tackle the moral dilemma directly.
The question is:
Given the chance to save millions in exchange for your life would you willingly give up your life. This is a special case in which 'your life' includes not only your future, but your whole existence.
I do get the qualification that everyone is going for ie: ...[text shortened]... ions, it is not worth the risk.
So what if you are sure? And how sure would you have to be?
Given the likely outcome of the non-existence of everyone born after your hypothesised
assassination in 1938 as well as the likelihood of a worse timeline for those who are born
in this new timeline then the odds (of such an outcome) would have to be spectacularly low.
Basically given what we know of the way the world works you could never have the level of
certainty needed.
Now if you were asking if you were alive in 1938, with no knowledge of the future beyond that point,
and you had the opportunity to kill Hitler, would you do it based on only what could reasonably known
or deduced at that point, then you have an interesting question.
However given the impossibility of time travel, the paradoxes that ensue if you do allow it, and the
likely consequences of such an action and sheer uncertainty associated with it, Their isn't much
of an argument for shooting Hitler if your goal is to try to make the present day world better.
For starters it only makes sense to try to make it better for the people presently in it.
Most of them wouldn't exist if you did this action which renders the idea of making the world better
for them meaningless.
given that my question was a paradox time travel back in time to 1938 before the war and gas chambers etc. it would be that in shooting him i do not exist and many more like me, but would men women and children that died would go on to live it would balance out. how would i feel if i did not shoot and watched the outcome faceing each child go to its death.
one thing ive always hated is peados and to watch live the chambers of horror would be devastating. so would i shoot since this is a paradox i would
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stokerI think you should spend more time writing and proof reading your posts.
given that my question was a paradox time travel back in time to 1938 before the war and gas chambers etc. it would be that in shooting him i do not exist and many more like me, but would men women and children that died would go on to live it would balance out. how would i feel if i did not shoot and watched the outcome faceing each child go to its death.
...[text shortened]... ve the chambers of horror would be devastating. so would i shoot since this is a paradox i would
It's one thing to have typos or spelling mistakes, this is an internet forum and such things
are to be expected. (and tolerated)
But in this post the grammar and sentence structure is so off that it doesn't make sense.
Which renders the point of posting it mute.
I would like to respond to your post, but as it stands I hesitate to guess what you you mean.