Killing Hitler?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1990
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Hereandnow » August 18th, 2018, 1:37 am

The better question is, does Hitler deserve the bad rap at all? After all, he did not ask to be a conscienceless psycho. He did not ask to feel no emotions as he slaughtered the innocent. If i were Hitler, I would have done the same (that's what it means to be Hitler). He was, as we all are, thrown into the world, thrown into a personality and its motivations. How is he at all to blame? Just as soon blame him for his sexual preference, or his aversion to goat cheese.

Eduk
Posts: 2065
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Eduk » August 18th, 2018, 3:51 am

Why question whether Hitler deserves the bad rap? How am I to blame? I was simply thrown into my personality and emotions. You might as well blame me for my sexual preference.
You seem to want it both ways Hereandnow. We shouldn't blame others but if we do we are to blame.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1990
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Hereandnow » August 18th, 2018, 10:49 am

Well Eduk, that term 'blame' can get pretty sloppy, I'll grant you. When I suggest we shouldn't blame Hitler, I bring into question the very meaning of the term and whether it even makes sense, as I am wont to do. No one at all can be blamed for anything if the term makes no sens. Are we to blame for blaming Hitler if 'blame' is a meaningless term? If the term makes no sense, then it should be taken off the table altogether. But then, if meanings are restricted to the loose and popular use, then to say I want to have it both ways is to mix standards of application, for my positing we shouldn't blame anyone for anything rests with a standard that is analytical of the term, and many terms that are popular crash and burn under inspection. But my loose and popular sense of things tells me to blame in a non analytical way, and accordingly, I do take matters this way as well.

Eduk
Posts: 2065
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Eduk » August 18th, 2018, 1:07 pm

I don't know of a succinct way of expressing what you are saying. Saying Hitler is not to blame is I think not useful for expressing your point. You could say in a sense he is not to blame, followed by a tight definition of the meaning of blame you are using.
For example if I could stop Hitler I would and if I could stop an earthquake I would (ignoring possible side effects). But I blame those two things in different ways.
Personally I believe people do have agency, and if they don't have agency it makes no actual difference (my conclusions remain the same). Though people don't have perfect agency (so I agree with you up to a point). Personally I would say there is some mitigation to Hitler and he should not be blamed fully in certain very specific ways, but at the same time he certainly should be blamed in others. Net result in the case of Hitler is the same though whether I find him wholly responsible or only partly.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 18th, 2018, 1:17 pm

Eduk wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 3:51 am
Why question whether Hitler deserves the bad rap? How am I to blame? I was simply thrown into my personality and emotions. You might as well blame me for my sexual preference.
You seem to want it both ways Hereandnow. We shouldn't blame others but if we do we are to blame.
In a deterministic world blame takes in a different meaning. Free will aside, Hitler did what he did and like all of us, we have to take responsibility for our actions, determined as they are.
And as Hitler was determined by his nature to act in the way he did, I am determined to stop him.
But I would be to blame, just as Hitler is to blame.

User avatar
Luxin
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: August 24th, 2018, 2:48 pm

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Luxin » September 1st, 2018, 5:12 pm

Dear philosopher mr533473 et al,

I only wish to comment on item 2). I would not, because for me there would be repercussions. "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" (Christ).

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by LuckyR » September 2nd, 2018, 2:40 am

Luxin wrote:
September 1st, 2018, 5:12 pm
Dear philosopher mr533473 et al,

I only wish to comment on item 2). I would not, because for me there would be repercussions. "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" (Christ).
Do you feel this phrase applies to literal stones or figurative ones?
"As usual... it depends."

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Burning ghost » September 2nd, 2018, 3:46 am

mr533473 wrote:
July 3rd, 2018, 2:51 am
1.) Morally speaking, is suicide immoral, permissible or obligatory? Why?

2.) If between 1930-1945, you were given the chance (without repercussion) to kill Hitler, would you do it? Would doing it be immoral, permissible or obligatory? why?

3.) Was Hitler's suicide immoral, permissible or obligatory? why?

4.) What's your favourite colour?
1) It seems like a very serious measure to take, but in some circumstances suicide isn’t immoral. If someone,wishes to die then what is there we can do to physically prevemt them from doing so without essentially taking away their freedom? Lots of grey areas for sure.

2) That would depend on the lay of the political landscape at the time of killing him. Was he the sole perpetrator? I don’t honestly know enough about history to say it would’ve made a positive difference if he was never to have existed. At face value though if we talking about killing one man to save several others then we’d have to judge the qualities of said people rather than simply regard the case as a one dead or several dead option because not everything aloce can be deemed of equal moral value (hence your questions.)

3) He was a drug addict in the end so I am not quite sure what to say? Are suicides immoral? Not all. Case by case.

4) Yellow. I’m very fond of autumnal colours (dull browns, greys and greens mixed in with sunburst yellows, and golden and orange hues.)
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 2nd, 2018, 6:48 am

Luxin wrote:
September 1st, 2018, 5:12 pm
Dear philosopher mr533473 et al,

I only wish to comment on item 2). I would not, because for me there would be repercussions. "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" (Christ).
There are no repercussions in a hypothetical scenario with no repercussions.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 2nd, 2018, 6:49 am

If we do not have control over our own lives then what is the point of morality.
Suicide is wholly in the hands of the individual and should be beyond the reach of moralisers

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3086
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by LuckyR » September 3rd, 2018, 2:25 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 2nd, 2018, 6:49 am
If we do not have control over our own lives then what is the point of morality.
Suicide is wholly in the hands of the individual and should be beyond the reach of moralisers
Well yes and no. True we each make our own moralistic judgements on our own life choices. But we all know that it is only a half step from correctly making our own choices to incorrectly feeling justified in holding others to our personal standards. Just ask a Pro-lifer.
"As usual... it depends."

Eduk
Posts: 2065
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 3:21 am

LuckyR is there not a complicated third option. As in you have a personal standard but due to error that standard is misapplied. If you knew it had been misapplied you would change the standard, but you don't know this. So actually you would want someone who had correctly applied your standard to hold you to their standard.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 3rd, 2018, 4:51 am

LuckyR wrote:
September 3rd, 2018, 2:25 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 2nd, 2018, 6:49 am
If we do not have control over our own lives then what is the point of morality.
Suicide is wholly in the hands of the individual and should be beyond the reach of moralisers
Well yes and no. True we each make our own moralistic judgements on our own life choices. But we all know that it is only a half step from correctly making our own choices to incorrectly feeling justified in holding others to our personal standards. Just ask a Pro-lifer.
I'm not advocating pro-life, are you?

As long as you do not unnecessarily inconvenience the rest of us, by jumping off a building onto a busy street, the end of life ought to be a personal choice.

It is an absurd law that only results in punishment when attempted and failed

Eduk
Posts: 2065
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 5:18 am

Where do you live Thomas?
Unknown means unknown.

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Killing Hitler?

Post by Steve3007 » September 3rd, 2018, 5:23 am

I'm in favour of such things as seatbelt laws and high taxation on cigarettes. Partly because of the effect that not wearing a seatbelt and smoking cigarettes has on the rest of society, but also because of the effect on the individual who does those things. So, in that sense, I'm in favour of the nanny state.

I'm not in favour of punishing people for attempting suicide, but, for the same reasons that I am in favour of the nanny state, I don't think it's entirely their own business whether they do so. It's other people's business too. I think (if it's being contemplated as a "permanent solution to a temporary problem", as they say) it should be discouraged with carrots not sticks. Not by threats of punishment, but by offers of help. I don't think the question of whether or not it is immoral is useful. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of labelling any given act as immoral is functional. It is preventative. It is a stick. So it's not applicable to suicide.

Post Reply