The Rabid Dog and a Hypothetical Question

[Akivah]

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.

I wouldn't kill him because I know how it came out. The West won the War and Israel rose out of Hitler's ashes. It is known that Hitler was not a good general. He made several bone-headed decisions that lost Germany the war (e.g. attacking Russia). Sure, obviously Hitler is evil and I wish upon him an eternity in Sheol. But I don't know who would replace him.

I am risk adverse. I will always take the certainty instead of the unknown.

 

[joe1776]

I am risk adverse. I will always take the certainty instead of the unknown.

Sorry, man, but that's a head scratcher. You had 60 million killed, who knows how many millions maimed, all that property destruction on the table, and you wouldn't take the shot because you're afraid things might get worse?

 

[Akivah]

Sorry, man, but that's a head scratcher. You had 60 million killed, who knows how many millions maimed, all that property destruction on the table, and you wouldn't take the shot because you're afraid things might get worse?

Yes.

If Germany won the War and continued their ways on a global basis, then it would have been worse.

 

[joe1776]

Yes.

If Germany won the War and continued their ways on a global basis, then it would have been worse.

Have you seen the old film of Hitler and his ranting speeches to huge adoring crowds?
Hitler was the driving force that caused the problem. The possibility that others would have continued the madness without him and won the war doesn't even register in my mind as a remote possibility. But, if it does in yours, there's nothing more to say about it.

 

[InChrist]

While I would see the dog as sick, I see Hitler as evil.

 

[SomeRandom]

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

The man was a megalomaniac with a messiah complex. He blamed Jews for his tragedies and idolised Germany as the pinnacle of humanity. That could very well be combined to form an opinion of "sickness" I suppose.
I don't really believe in "evil." But there are acts that go against basic humanity. The Holocaust is obviously one of them. I'd probably view killing Hitler as an act for the greater good.

 

[joe1776]

While I would see the dog as sick, I see Hitler as evil.

Some years back, I read of the parents of a notorious serial killer who wrote to his victims to offer their condolences. They said that while their son's act had profoundly saddened them that they were unable to deny their love for him. It struck me that that's the true nature of love. Parents who truly love their children will love them unconditionally, whether they become saints or serial killers. I imagined also that the serial killer's parents would see him as sick and not evil.

Then, it occurred to me that if a Loving Creator exists, that we would all be loved unconditionally. So, it doesn't matter what we believe, atheist, agnostic or theist. And, while the acts of the serial killer might well profoundly sadden a Loving Creator, the killer would be seen as sick and not evil.

As for punishment, I can imagine that a Loving Creator might approve of a fair punishment as instruction for misbehavior, but the idea of eternal punishment in Hell for any reason seems absurd, and the idea of Hell as eternal punishment for non-belief is absurdly unjust.

Christians have been told to believe in a god who loves conditionally -- I will love you if you please me. That's not love at all. That's an attempt to use another's need for love to coerce compliance. "If you don't please me I'll withhold my love."

Had we , you and I, been born with the same genes as Hitler, and had we been raised as he was, we might be bully tyrants bent on world domination just as he was. If a Loving Creator exists, I think Hitler was seen as sick not evil, like the rabid dog.

 

[joe1776]

The man was a megalomaniac with a messiah complex. He blamed Jews for his tragedies and idolised Germany as the pinnacle of humanity. That could very well be combined to form an opinion of "sickness" I suppose.
I don't really believe in "evil." But there are acts that go against basic humanity. The Holocaust is obviously one of them. I'd probably view killing Hitler as an act for the greater good.

That's a close reflection of my opinion as well.

 

[columbus]

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.

I don't think killing a human is inherently wrong. It is degrading to the human situation so very consistently that it nearly always is. Nearly. But not necessarily.

Hitler makes a poor choice for the hypothetical I believe, for a few reasons. For one thing, he was a genius at oratory and persuasion. Had that talent been diverted to something positive, rather than snuffed, maybe something great could have come of it. Your hypothetical isn't clear on options. But frankly, were things as simple as "Shoot Hitler, then everybody else lives happily ever after." then I would do it. Not out of hate, but sheer utilitarianism. Not even because he was "sick", exactly. Because European culture was sick, Germany in particular. Hitler had the skills to set off the bomb, but he didn't make it. He didn't gas anybody or bomb any cities and had his views not been so popular with zillions of other people he wouldn't have accomplished anything significant.

Personally, I think he was a bit of a scapegoat for all the other powerful people who supported him and the EuroChristian culture that spawned all that.

Then there is also what @Akivah said. Who knows what might have happened if, for example, a Hitler free Germany had still declared war most of the West, but not for a few more years. After they had acquired the atomic weapons that folks like Einstein delivered to the Allies?
Tom

 

[joe1776]

Hitler makes a poor choice for the hypothetical I believe...

I wanted someone, well-known to all, someone who most people regard as evil. Some Christians regard Adolf as the anti-Christ.

Hypotheticals are supposed to simplify things to make a point. My point was to see if others agreed with me that the killing of Adolf should produce emotions similar to the killing of a rabid dog. A few agreed. A few did not.

But frankly, were things as simple as "Shoot Hitler, then everybody else lives happily ever after." then I would do it. Not out of hate, but sheer utilitarianism.

We agree on that. I agree with some of your other observations, but they went beyond the scope of my hypothetical. I don't think Akivah's point was valid, though, as I explained to him.

 

[columbus]

I wanted someone, well-known to all, someone who most people regard as evil. Some Christians regard Adolf as the anti-Christ.

I do understand that better now. The problem I was referring to is that Hitler has become nearly a caricature, people often respond more to that than the vastly more complex reality.

If your hypothetical was only about the distinction between killing a non-human and a human (when they both present a grave danger to other people), maybe a more anonymous psychopath would better serve the purpose.
I dunno.

My own answer would still be similar. Killing is not inherently wrong, but nearly always is wrong. Dogs are different, so I would explore more options if possible if the object of destruction is a human being, however dreadful the impacts of their life might be.
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Lots of variables, not enough information.

i do not believe it is always wrong to kill, or more precisely, it is always wrong, but sometimes necessary. so I might take the shot. I would have to know what the risk is to my own life was, and have good reason to believe that killing Hitler would actually dismantle the idealogical system that was the real problem.

not sure you added in the rabid dog scenario, as it has no bearing on the prime question.

 

[joe1776]

Lots of variables, not enough information.

i do not believe it is always wrong to kill, or more precisely, it is always wrong, but sometimes necessary. so I might take the shot. I would have to know what the risk is to my own life was, and have good reason to believe that killing Hitler would actually dismantle the idealogical system that was the real problem.

not sure you added in the rabid dog scenario, as it has no bearing on the prime question.

As I explained earlier, my hypothetical was set up to see if others agreed with me that killing Hitler was virtually the same moral problem as that of killing the rabid dog. A few posters agreed, a few did not.

 

[icehorse]

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.

My detailed knowledge of the WWII timeline isn't too strong, but am I right to say that Hitler was already at war with much of Europe? If so, seems like a no-brainer to kill the leader of an attacking army.

Maybe the question would be better if it placed the time to be during the rise of the Nazis but before military aggression broke out?

Back to the OP: It's interesting because you seem to be granted us limited powers of prognostication. But even though a non-Hitler world *might* have turned out worse, I think you'd have to take the shot.

 

[joe1776]

Back to the OP: It's interesting because you seem to be granted us limited powers of prognostication. But even though a non-Hitler world *might* have turned out worse, I think you'd have to take the shot.

Do you do it with a sense of regret and think of Hitler as sick not evil as you did in killing the rabid dog?

 

[icehorse]

Do you do it with a sense of regret and think of Hitler as sick not evil as you did in killing the rabid dog?

You bring up a lot of issues at the same time. I guess my belief is that evil is an outcome of some form of illness.

 

[joe1776]

You bring up a lot of issues at the same time. I guess my belief is that evil is an outcome of some form of illness.

OK, I agree and I think you break the tie. I had it three-three before your vote.

 

[InChrist]

Some years back, I read of the parents of a notorious serial killer who wrote to his victims to offer their condolences. They said that while their son's act had profoundly saddened them that they were unable to deny their love for him. It struck me that that's the true nature of love. Parents who truly love their children will love them unconditionally, whether they become saints or serial killers. I imagined also that the serial killer's parents would see him as sick and not evil.

Then, it occurred to me that if a Loving Creator exists, that we would all be loved unconditionally. So, it doesn't matter what we believe, atheist, agnostic or theist. And, while the acts of the serial killer might well profoundly sadden a Loving Creator, the killer would be seen as sick and not evil.

As for punishment, I can imagine that a Loving Creator might approve of a fair punishment as instruction for misbehavior, but the idea of eternal punishment in Hell for any reason seems absurd, and the idea of Hell as eternal punishment for non-belief is absurdly unjust.

Christians have been told to believe in a god who loves conditionally -- I will love you if you please me. That's not love at all. That's an attempt to use another's need for love to coerce compliance. "If you don't please me I'll withhold my love."

Had we , you and I, been born with the same genes as Hitler, and had we been raised as he was, we might be bully tyrants bent on world domination just as he was. If a Loving Creator exists, I think Hitler was seen as sick not evil, like the rabid dog.

According to the Bible animals are innocent and not morally accountable as are human beings made in the image of God. A dog with rabies is also clearly sick. On the other hand, many people may have genes with a propensity for certain negative behaviors or have difficult backgrounds, but all do not choose to treat others as Hitler chose to. All do not repeatedly choose to place themselves in a position of entitlement over others or become so callous to the pain and suffering of other human beings which they are inflicting. According to the biblical scriptures, all have sinned and I suppose you could say we are infected with the sickness of sin. Yet, some like Hitler choose to embrace their sin to the point of no return. Sin has become their identity, an identity they have no desire to change. This, I believe is evil personified.

I think the unconditional love you expect or describe is simply unrealistic, if not outright evil. Sure a parent will always love their child whatever they may do, but what does such love look like? Does "love" mean that I stand by silently knowing that a son of mine is murdering people or molesting children? Does love mean I accept my son's murderous behavior as okay, an attitude of that's just who he is, with no desire or demand for him to be sorry, face consequences, and change? I don't think so. Sometimes love means taking action to protect innocent lives. Sometimes it may mean removing the perpetrator so that others are safe, even if it means prison or death for a loved one who is guilty he.

According to the scriptures, we are all guilty before God of serious offenses toward Him and others. His remedy is a life renewed and transformed into the image of the sinless, perfect Christ. God offers this new eternal sin-free life to everyone, but there is a condition...one must choose Love over sin. If someone chooses to make sin their identity then eternal separation from all that is good becomes their destiny. You may call it absurd or unjust, but I call it supremely just and loving as God protects not only the sin, pain, harm-free eternal realm He has in store, but also the safety and protection of the millions who choose to live live in this eternity with Him.

 

[joe1776]

....You may call it absurd or unjust, but I call it supremely just and loving as God protects not only the sin, pain, harm-free eternal realm He has in store, but also the safety and protection of the millions who choose to live live in this eternity with Him.

Well, of course, I don't accept that as a reasonable explanation.

We were luckier at birth than Adolf Hitler. We didn't inherit his genes and we weren't raised as he was. Yes, it's possible that we might have been born just as unlucky as he was and not turned out so badly. We'd like to think so, but we really can't know that with certainty. Still, if a Loving Creator exists, I can understand a fair punishment in an afterlife as instruction.

Have you given the nature of love much thought? No, of course a loving parent doesn't have to accept their child's misbehavior. No, they don't have to be silent and do nothing if their son is molesting children. They can do everything in their power to stop them, but they can't stop loving them. And they don't send them to eternal punishment in hell because they don't accept the religious doctrine offered them. Loving parents punish as instruction, not in vengeance.

 

[InChrist]

Well, of course, I don't accept that as a reasonable explanation.

We were luckier at birth than Adolf Hitler. We didn't inherit his genes and we weren't raised as he was. Yes, it's possible that we might have been born just as unlucky as he was and not turned out so badly. We'd like to think so, but we really can't know that with certainty. Still, if a Loving Creator exists, I can understand a fair punishment in an afterlife as instruction.

Have you given the nature of love much thought? No, of course a loving parent doesn't have to accept their child's misbehavior. No, they don't have to be silent and do nothing if their son is molesting children. They can do everything in their power to stop them, but they can't stop loving them. And they don't send them to eternal punishment in hell because they don't accept the religious doctrine offered them. Loving parents punish as instruction, not in vengeance.

I don't see it as luck, rather choice. Whatever one's circumstances certain choices are still possible. Are you saying that Adolf Hitler had no choice in the matter concerning his behavior and treatment of the Jews and others?

I also see this present life as the instruction time and opportunity to choose, not religious doctrine, but the way God says is... right or wrong, selfishness or kindness, good or evil.