The Rabid Dog and a Hypothetical Question

[joe1776]

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.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Insert every sci-fi where attempting to go back and kill Hitler makes things worse because mucking with timelines creates myriads of unforeseen consequences.

As for the thrust of the metaphor, I'm a pacifist up to a point. If I need to take action to prevent someone from getting harmed, I will detain if at all possible, or move the people out of harms way if at all possible, and only kill at a very last resort.
If I were a person in the WW2 era I'd probably be one of the people smuggling refugees and hiding them from harm, rather than the person attempting assasinations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

Well, for starters, you've not mentioned what potential problems would occur from the time paradox. The world I would come from is a world in which the holocaust happened, and by killing Hitler (assumedly preventing the holocaust and WW2) I may very well render the world (or timeline) I come from non-existent and either collapse time in some way or else lead to the consequence of me saving a world that is not the one I came from.

Secondly, the situation is very specific. You're talking about killing someone in a situation where we already have foreknowledge of the consequences of their actions, and killing them would be a way of directly preventing that from occurring. It's not really a comparable situation to, say, executing a convicted murderer.

 

[Spideymon77]

I would kill the dog because he/she is a danger to others.

I would kill Hitler because he/she is also a danger to others.

 

[joe1776]

Insert every sci-fi where attempting to go back and kill Hitler makes things worse because mucking with timelines creates myriads of unforeseen consequences.

As for the thrust of the metaphor, I'm a pacifist up to a point. If I need to take action to prevent someone from getting harmed, I will detain if at all possible, or move the people out of harms way if at all possible, and only kill at a very last resort.
If I were a person in the WW2 era I'd probably be one of the people smuggling refugees and hiding them from harm, rather than the person attempting assasinations.

By giving yourself more options, you really didn't answer the hypothetical as offered. Do you take the opportunity to kill him or not? And, if you do, how do you feel about it?

And sci-fi stories always go like that because it makes for more interesting stories.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

By giving yourself more options, you really didn't answer the hypothetical as offered. Do you take the opportunity to kill him or not? And, if you do, how do you feel about it?

And sci-fi stories always go like that because it makes for more interesting stories.

No hypothetical worth addressing should be limited to a yes or no answer. There are issues in the larger picture of this narrative than being considered in the OP, and relevant to my decision making.

 

[joe1776]

Well, for starters, you've not mentioned what potential problems would occur from the time paradox. The world I would come from is a world in which the holocaust happened, and by killing Hitler (assumedly preventing the holocaust and WW2) I may very well render the world (or timeline) I come from non-existent and either collapse time in some way or else lead to the consequence of me saving a world that is not the one I came from.

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.

Secondly, the situation is very specific. You're talking about killing someone in a situation where we already have foreknowledge of the consequences of their actions, and killing them would be a way of directly preventing that from occurring. It's not really a comparable situation to, say, executing a convicted murderer.

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.

 

[joe1776]

No hypothetical worth addressing should be limited to a yes or no answer.

If that's your opinion, so be it. But, when you added your options, it was no longer my hypothetical.

 

[joe1776]

I would kill the dog because he/she is a danger to others.

I would kill Hitler because he/she is also a danger to others.

Good. Now do you have similar feelings about Hitler and the dog. Do you feel regret for having to do it. Do you regard Hitler as evil or sick?

 

[Brickjectivity]

In another thread someone said "When we write criminal laws to prohibit murder, they are unnecessary at best and biases at their worst because human acts happen in an almost infinite variety, moral situations are not an exception. Conscience is equipped to deal with those variations, the reasoning function of our brains cannot. It's not possible to write the perfect law on murder or any other kind of act." I disagree except for the last part. Its true that no two cases are exactly alike.

You do need laws to limit the power of the sheriffs, judges and others. You do need everyone to believe that there is a chance that they have a fair trial. In other words there should be a high probability that bias will be overshadowed by written laws.

This relates to your question about the mad dog and Hitler. Sure there is no specific law about people with Hitler's qualifications and issues, but there are laws that apply to him. You follow those laws as best you can, and for the dog you follow the laws that apply to dogs. The dog gets shot right away. The Hitler goes to jail, then goes to trial.

 

[Spideymon77]

Good. Now do you have similar feelings about Hitler and the dog. Do you feel regret for having to do it. Do you regard Hitler as evil or sick?

Well, I'd feel bad for killing both Hitler and the dog.

Hitler is misguided, he thought that the Jews were responsible for the killing of all of his friends in WW1. So technically, Hitler is sick.

The dog on the other hand, is also sick. He doesn't mean to have rabies, he just has it and now I have to kill it.

 

[sun rise]

My answer is another hypothetical. If I see someone raping a woman with a knife in his hand bringing it back to kill her, I'd kill him. Ideally I'd do it dispassionately but I'm human with human flaws so probably I'd be very angry etc.

 

[joe1776]

In another thread someone said "When we write criminal laws to prohibit murder, they are unnecessary at best and biases at their worst because human acts happen in an almost infinite variety, moral situations are not an exception. Conscience is equipped to deal with those variations, the reasoning function of our brains cannot. It's not possible to write the perfect law on murder or any other kind of act." I disagree except for the last part. Its true that no two cases are exactly alike.

You do need laws to limit the power of the sheriffs, judges and others. You do need everyone to believe that there is a chance that they have a fair trial. In other words there should be a high probability that bias will be overshadowed by written laws.

This relates to your question about the mad dog and Hitler. Sure there is no specific law about people with Hitler's qualifications and issues, but there are laws that apply to him. You follow those laws as best you can, and for the dog you follow the laws that apply to dogs. The dog gets shot right away. The Hitler goes to jail, then goes to trial.

So, then, your answer to my hypothetical I presume would be "no." You wouldn't take the opportunity to kill Hitler and prevent all the death and destruction he caused because the act would be against the law?

 

[joe1776]

Well, I'd feel bad for killing both Hitler and the dog.

Hitler is misguided, he thought that the Jews were responsible for the killing of all of his friends in WW1. So technically, Hitler is sick.

The dog on the other hand, is also sick. He doesn't mean to have rabies, he just has it and now I have to kill it.

We're on the same page.

 

[joe1776]

My answer is another hypothetical. If I see someone raping a woman with a knife in his hand bringing it back to kill her, I'd kill him. Ideally I'd do it dispassionately but I'm human with human flaws so probably I'd be very angry etc.

OK, I don't think that gives me an answer to my hypothetical, though.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, then, your answer to my hypothetical I presume would be "no." You wouldn't take the opportunity to kill Hitler and prevent all the death and destruction he caused because the act would be against the law?

I would prevent all the death and destruction he caused. I just would do it using the law. You seem to think that killing him would have been a panacea, but it wouldn't. There is therefore no comparison between killing him and the mad dog.

 

[joe1776]

I would prevent all the death and destruction he caused. I just would do it using the law.

How could you possibly do that? It took armies from 55 nations just to limit the damage to a mere catastrophe.

 

[crowfeather]

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.

 

[joe1776]

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.

We're different. I have the ability to imagine how I would react to a given situation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How could you possibly do that? It took armies from 55 nations just to limit the damage to a mere catastrophe.

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.