Would it be unethical to write someone out of existence?

[Ella S.]

Imagine that you had the ability to change history so that a specific individual was never conceived.

Could this be considered a form of murder? Do you think there are graver ethical issues with changing history, given that this would change the lives of all of the people that the un-made person directly and indirectly affected?

 

[Father Heathen]

Imagine that you had the ability to change history so that a specific individual was never conceived.

Could this be considered a form of murder? Do you think there are graver ethical issues with changing history, given that this would change the lives of all of the people that the un-made person directly and indirectly affected?

Every sperm cell that failed to fertilize an egg was a potential character who got written off.

 

[Estro Felino]

It would be to violate people's free will.
Which not even God does.
My freedom ends right where the other's freedom begins.

 

[exchemist]

Imagine that you had the ability to change history so that a specific individual was never conceived.

Could this be considered a form of murder? Do you think there are graver ethical issues with changing history, given that this would change the lives of all of the people that the un-made person directly and indirectly affected?

It seems to me that if you could change history you would unable to avoid doing so.

Every change would have multiple unforeseen effects, which would eventually involve people not meeting, or not making love on the same day, and so some individuals conceived would not be ones that were in the unaltered version.

By the same token, every action we take in the present has unseen ramifications, which may affect who is subsequently born. So no, it's not murder.

 

[Ella S.]

It seems to me that if you could change history you would unable to avoid doing so.

Every change would have multiple unforeseen effects, which would eventually involve people not meeting, or not making love on the same day, and so some individuals conceived would not be ones that were in the unaltered version.

By the same token, every action we take in the present has unseen ramifications, which may affect who is subsequently born. So no, it's not murder.

Do you think there would be a moral difference between directly and indirectly writing someone out of existence?

 

[exchemist]

Do you think there would be a moral difference between directly and indirectly writing someone out of existence?

I'm afraid I think this is one of those "What if the sky were made of concrete?" questions.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm afraid I think this is one of those "What if the sky were made of concrete?" questions.

The thought experiment is meant to gain a deeper understanding of why we value the lives that we do and to help gain a better understanding of what we consider murder and why.

To me, it seems that this thread has already been helpful for that, but I can understand if these kinds of thought experiments are not quite your thing.

 

[Audie]

It would be to violate people's free will.
Which not even God does.
My freedom ends right where the other's freedom begins.

Turning someone into a pillar of salt
is no violation of free will.

 

[Audie]

I'm afraid I think this is one of those "What if the sky were made of concrete?" questions.

What if you had a collection of all
the elements?
What if you had a mole of moles?

What If? (book) - Wikipedia

 

[Twilight Hue]

Turning someone into a pillar of salt
is no violation of free will.

Especially if you have a salad that needs some salt.

 

[Audie]

Especially if you have a salad that needs some salt.

Satan explains free will-

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Especially if you have a salad that needs some salt.

C'mon, this God we're talking about!

He clearly prefers malt vinegar.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Could this be considered a form of murder?

IMHO, it is murder unless for valid reasons.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm afraid I think this is one of those "What if the sky were made of concrete?" questions.

definitely and beer and pizza discussion

 

[Nakosis]

Imagine that you had the ability to change history so that a specific individual was never conceived.

Could this be considered a form of murder? Do you think there are graver ethical issues with changing history, given that this would change the lives of all of the people that the un-made person directly and indirectly affected?

No idea how one might change history even with the best of intentions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Imagine that you had the ability to change history so that a specific individual was never conceived.

Could this be considered a form of murder? Do you think there are graver ethical issues with changing history, given that this would change the lives of all of the people that the un-made person directly and indirectly affected?

Well in that situation you would be God. So it would not be unethical....but you may or may not make that choice depending on what the greater effects would be... I suspect there are many times when we think God should have not created some person, but we can't see the whole picture that would have happened otherwise.

 

[Windwalker]

Imagine that you had the ability to change history so that a specific individual was never conceived.

Could this be considered a form of murder? Do you think there are graver ethical issues with changing history, given that this would change the lives of all of the people that the un-made person directly and indirectly affected?

At first I thought you were talking about blotting someone's name out of all historical mention or recollection, which is something historical revisionists like to do to write history in their own favor. But are you asking something along the lines like time traveling and interfering with Hitler's parents ever meeting so baby Adolf would never be conceived?

Each case has its own set of ethical questions. One is taking an existing person and erasing any knowledge about them historically. The other is interfering in a timeline preventing that person being born.

 

[Windwalker]

Well in that situation you would be God. So it would not be unethical....

So it's ethical if God commits an atrocity, but bad if we do it? Does that mean if we do the same atrocity in the name of God, it's ethical then? I know many do believe this way. Do you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So it's ethical if God commits an atrocity, but bad if we do it? Does that mean if we do the same atrocity in the name of God, it's ethical then? I know many do believe this way. Do you?

God can not create someone, or he can end someone's life because he creates each and every life. We don't have that option. Although if it was to save innocent life we could make that judgement call.
Everyone dies and God decides when... There was one guy in the Old Testament who prayed and got 15 extra years to live, so God does listen, but he still is the only one who has the right to decide when we die.

 

[Ella S.]

At first I thought you were talking about blotting someone's name out of all historical mention or recollection, which is something historical revisionists like to do to write history in their own favor. But are you asking something along the lines like time traveling and interfering with Hitler's parents ever meeting so baby Adolf would never be conceived?

Each case has its own set of ethical questions. One is taking an existing person and erasing any knowledge about them historically. The other is interfering in a timeline preventing that person being born.

It was a question about time travel, but I am interested in your input on historical revisionism, too.