The Rabid Dog and a Hypothetical Question

[ImmortalFlame]

Since you don't know what would happen if you do kill him, but you do know what will happen if you don't, what's your call? Do you take the shot or not and how do you feel about it if you do.

I just can't say. If I shot him, there's a possibility I could, at best, erase myself from existence and, at worst, erase everything I've ever known from existence.

I wasn't try to have my hypothetical be comparable to another killing. I'm out to show that killing Hitler and killing the rabid dog are morally similar choices.

I wouldn't say necessarily so. Perhaps you could more easily compare it to a human that has rabies.

 

[joe1776]

So in your hypothetical question I can time travel or have advance knowledge of what Hitler's going to do, but I am not allowed to have enough time to stop him legally? You are taking away options! See if I can time travel then I can stop the Nazi party from ever forming in the first place. Shooting Hitler would just be an incompetent fart if I could do that instead.

You are unwilling or unable to answer my hypothetical question as posed, then?

 

[sayak83]

You see a rabid dog standing in the road. You're handed a hunting rifle. You take aim and kill it. You don't take pride in the killing. You did it with regret. It was just something you had to do.

You didn't do it because the dog's life had no value for you but because it represented a greater danger to other lives. You didn't regard the dog as evil. You saw it as sick.

You didn't hate the dog. If you hated anything, it was ignorance because we don't know how to cure rabies.

Now, a hypothetical: The year is 1940 and you are in Germany. You have a rifle and the perfect opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler, you know what you now know about the extent of his crimes.

How does the hypothetical for you differ from the rabid dog killing?

If you believe it's always wrong to kill, please tell us why you wouldn't take the shot.

If you would kill him with hate because you think he's evil and not sick, please explain why.

In 1940? Of course. The war has already begun. Why won't I?

 

[joe1776]

I wouldn't say necessarily so. Perhaps you could more easily compare it to a human that has rabies.

That would amount to making a different point. Why would I want to do that?

 

[joe1776]

In 1940? Of course. The war has already begun. Why won't I?

Good. Now, how do you feel about it? Regret that it had to be done? Do you regard Hitler as sick or evil? Any difference than you felt killing the rabid dog?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That would amount to making a different point. Why would I want to do that?

Well, because you're comparing putting down a rabid dog to going back in time and killing Hitler - the two aren't really equatable.

 

[sayak83]

Good. Now, how do you feel about it? Regret that it had to be done? Do you regard Hitler as sick or evil? Any difference than you felt killing the rabid dog?

I won't kill a rabid dog. Will call a dog catcher.
How would I know know. Never killed anyone before. Probably would feel like what WW 2 soldiers felt, but there's a wide variation there of course.

I would consider Hitler a threat to the lives and happiness of hundreds and millions of people which cannot be defused any other way given our capabilities. If I had a empathy enhancement serum it would be different, but I don't.

 

[Nietzsche]

What would I do?
Impossible to know. I never work from a plan. Spontaneous, intuitive, improvisational. I would do whatever I did, in the moment I did it.
Or not.

Why bother posting if you're going to give what is effectively an extremely wordy non-answer?

You see a rabid dog standing in the road. You're handed a hunting rifle. You take aim and kill it. You don't take pride in the killing. You did it with regret. It was just something you had to do.

You didn't do it because the dog's life had no value for you but because it represented a greater danger to other lives. You didn't regard the dog as evil. You saw it as sick.

You didn't hate the dog. If you hated anything, it was ignorance because we don't know how to cure rabies.

Now, a hypothetical: The year is 1940 and you are in Germany. You have a rifle and the perfect opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler, you know what you now know about the extent of his crimes.

How does the hypothetical for you differ from the rabid dog killing?

If you believe it's always wrong to kill, please tell us why you wouldn't take the shot.

If you would kill him with hate because you think he's evil and not sick, please explain why.

Question. What is the exact date? This will heavily influence my answer.

 

[crowfeather]

Why bother posting if you're going to give what is effectively an extremely wordy non-answer?

Explaining anything about life to you, really would be a waste of time, especially trying to explain that not everything written on the internet is there expressly for your consumption.
See, this very reply, it's not here for you, but to illustrate to others who are not you, how to deal with those that are you.
Because, people like you operate in ways unknown to people who are not you, and that can be problematic to non-yous.
There. That's why. I hope that's OK with the internet police.

 

[Fool]

You see a rabid dog standing in the road. You're handed a hunting rifle. You take aim and kill it. You don't take pride in the killing. You did it with regret. It was just something you had to do.

You didn't do it because the dog's life had no value for you but because it represented a greater danger to other lives. You didn't regard the dog as evil. You saw it as sick.

You didn't hate the dog. If you hated anything, it was ignorance because we don't know how to cure rabies.

Now, a hypothetical: The year is 1940 and you are in Germany. You have a rifle and the perfect opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler, you know what you now know about the extent of his crimes.

How does the hypothetical for you differ from the rabid dog killing?

If you believe it's always wrong to kill, please tell us why you wouldn't take the shot.

If you would kill him with hate because you think he's evil and not sick, please explain why.

imminent danger is not the same as following blind obedience to authority.

 

[SomeRandom]

Personally I'd kill Gobbels and Mengele as well. I don't know how I'd feel, probably be okay with it regardless.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You see a rabid dog standing in the road. You're handed a hunting rifle. You take aim and kill it. You don't take pride in the killing. You did it with regret. It was just something you had to do.

You didn't do it because the dog's life had no value for you but because it represented a greater danger to other lives. You didn't regard the dog as evil. You saw it as sick.

You didn't hate the dog. If you hated anything, it was ignorance because we don't know how to cure rabies.

Now, a hypothetical: The year is 1940 and you are in Germany. You have a rifle and the perfect opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler, you know what you now know about the extent of his crimes.

How does the hypothetical for you differ from the rabid dog killing?

If you believe it's always wrong to kill, please tell us why you wouldn't take the shot.

If you would kill him with hate because you think he's evil and not sick, please explain why.

Like most people I'd say both were more than justified, and I think most of us would feel worse about killing the dog. Of course we are all aware of the sci fi scenarios where killing Hitler would be worse, but unless we were strongly allied with him or his national German socialist party, most would not have much difficultly determining the right thing to do.

It's an interesting hypothetical though, because we can boil it down to the train track analogy- is it better to divert the train and be directly responsible for the death of one? or take the pacifist approach and let the train run over 10 people - as long as that's not 'our fault'?

 

[LukeS]

If we could reliably know these scenarios in real life, there'd be rules about them.

I am reminded of the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Living without rules is like playing chess without knowing the games ins and outs. Youl'll probably lose most of the time to a more skillful opponent even if you manage a lucky brute force win every now and again..


Killing Hitler sounds like "act utilitarianism".

It seems like an extraordinary claim that we could know precisely which specific act to take in reality rather than thought experiments -- and we act within human reaity, not some fantasy alternate with psychic powers. Its therein that morality has developed.

Or an example of Kohlbergs "postconventional morality", maybe?

If I wouldn't kill Hitler its because the law "don't murder" is there for a reason. As in rule utilitarianism, which deals with types of actions I think, as a means for the social programme.

Its a bit like I might chop my finger off so that I could buy a winning lottery ticket. Ok, sounds like a possible beneficial trade off, but we live by rules for a reason. We have evolved to live by rules for a reason, its called "conventional morality" and we are integrated into society with general rules style thinking as teens.


Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia


We have sensible but fallible everyday tactics, geared towards a reasonable strategic end. And the meta-rule, i.e. don't breach them even if a breach would profit from time to time.

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." (Luke 4:9–13)

In Christianity there is a vice called tempting God, ie relying on Gods mercy to extricate us where common sense ought to prevail.

Dictionary : TEMPTING GOD


Killing Hitler may sound good, but in the real world such actiona are as silly as jumping off a cliff.

Whyetr the wuuyt.

 

[LukeS]

If we had to power to know Hitler, why not his soldiers too, knowing about you?

"Sorry, Mr Ethical, we got here first...."

 

[joe1776]

Why bother posting if you're going to give what is effectively an extremely wordy non-answer?


Question. What is the exact date? This will heavily influence my answer.

Like all hypothetical questions, mine was created to get response on a specific point. The date doesn't matter on my point, so I prefer to stay on topic.

 

[joe1776]

Personally I'd kill Gobbels and Mengele as well. I don't know how I'd feel, probably be okay with it regardless.

Would you regard Hitler as sick like the rabid dog or evil?

 

[joe1776]

It's an interesting hypothetical though, because we can boil it down to the train track analogy- is it better to divert the train and be directly responsible for the death of one? or take the pacifist approach and let the train run over 10 people - as long as that's not 'our fault'?

Unlike the train track problem, my hypothetical involves a wrongdoer and whether you see him as sick or evil. You see, if we humans, saw sickness instead of evil, we would quarantine instead of punish.

For example, a child molester might be sent to an all-adult factory town, for life or until cured, even on a mild first offense. There, he could live a normal life and be a productive citizen but without access to children. The world would be safer for kids.

 

[joe1776]

If we could reliably know these scenarios in real life, there'd be rules about them.

I am reminded of the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Living without rules is like playing chess without knowing the games ins and outs. Youl'll probably lose most of the time to a more skillful opponent even if you manage a lucky brute force win every now and again..


Killing Hitler sounds like "act utilitarianism".

It seems like an extraordinary claim that we could know precisely which specific act to take in reality rather than thought experiments -- and we act within human reaity, not some fantasy alternate with psychic powers. Its therein that morality has developed.

Or an example of Kohlbergs "postconventional morality", maybe?

If I wouldn't kill Hitler its because the law "don't murder" is there for a reason. As in rule utilitarianism, which deals with types of actions I think, as a means for the social programme.

Its a bit like I might chop my finger off so that I could buy a winning lottery ticket. Ok, sounds like a possible beneficial trade off, but we live by rules for a reason. We have evolved to live by rules for a reason, its called "conventional morality" and we are integrated into society with general rules style thinking as teens.


Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia


We have sensible but fallible everyday tactics, geared towards a reasonable strategic end. And the meta-rule, i.e. don't breach them even if a breach would profit from time to time.

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." (Luke 4:9–13)

In Christianity there is a vice called tempting God, ie relying on Gods mercy to extricate us where common sense ought to prevail.

Dictionary : TEMPTING GOD


Killing Hitler may sound good, but in the real world such actiona are as silly as jumping off a cliff.

Whyetr the wuuyt.

Our opinions will not agree often on the topic of morality. For example, I rejected Kohlberg's theory many years ago in favor of a simple theory on moral intuition (conscience). I think our moral judgments are built on the very simple feelings of pain and pleasure.

Is the act in this specific situation right or wrong? If wrong, we feel it immediately..

Is the act in this specific situation fair or unfair? If unfair, we feel it immediately.

According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger.

Our laws on murder are our finest attempt at rule-making. I think when they agree with conscience, they are coincidentally right. I think that when they don't agree with the collective conscience of an unbiased jury, they are potential biases capable of creating injustices.

And, if our laws on murder, our finest attempt at rule-making, fail, all attempts at making moral rules will fail.

So, back to my topic: Do you regard the behavior of someone like Adolf Hitler as evil or so you see him as sick like the rabid dog? If our society sees evil, we punish. If we see sickness, we quarantine.

For example, a child molester might be sent to an all-adult factory town, for life or until cured, even on a mild first offense. There, he could live a normal life and be a productive citizen but without access to children. The world would be safer for kids.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I wouldn't have shot the dog... so.... now what?

 

[joe1776]

Well, I wouldn't have shot the dog... so.... now what?

My hypothetical didn't give you an option. It declares that you shot the dog. So, if you would not have done so, you don't have to answer my question. If you did, it would be a change of topic.