To bring up a topic I found very interesting that we
discussed in class, do the means justify the ends. The conversation my group
had on that day took a weird turn when I brought up a silly question to delve
into this discussion question. If you transported back in time and met Hitler as
a baby would you off him to save the lives of all those people? Would those
means justify the ends? In our little group we all agreed that yeah maybe that
would be the beneficial thing to do for humanity, but in reality none of could
actually do it. The question then turned into; well if you did off him would
his spot in the grand play of the universe just get filled by someone else. There
were plenty of people hungry for power during that era, and lots of people
searching for a leader. In our group we came to the conclusion that the answer
to this big question of, do the means justify the ends was that it’s
situational. Yea that’s not a real concrete answer (what really is in this
world) but it stood true to at least the three of us in the group. If no one
ends up hurt or things don’t end up on bad terms then yeah the means seem
justified. However vice versa it’s harder to make a claim that the means are justified.
I’ll throw this question out to anyone that feels like answering. Would you get
rid of that baby who’s done nothing to get rid of that horrific event in
history?
Ah, the Jeb Bush question!
ReplyDeleteWould I kill baby Hitler? Depends... am I the only time-traveler? If there are others, are they obliged to respect and not interfere with the normal development of history? If there are but I choose to violate that prime directive, will other travelers follow my precedent? Will I place my own existence at risk?
But... if you believe you SHOULD do the deed but wouldn't be able to bring yourself to do it, you may be a theoretic (if not actual) utilitarian.