Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3251920" data-attributes="member: 22424">I've seen this question before. What it fails to take into account is that taking a single thread out of history has all sorts of knock-on effects that you can't foresee. Removing the tyrant might save those millions of lives... or it might see someone else in the leader's role, someone who doesn't make the mistakes that lead to that tyrant's eventual downfall.Even if you do save those millions of lives, you prevent two wars, and the advancements that come out of those wars. If one of those advancements is the weapons technology that is later vital in allowing Bruce Willis to prevent the impending asteroid impact and save the world, well... oops.The basic upshot is: don't mess with history.But, to tackle the question at the root of this: is it acceptable to murder one person to save the lives of one million? Well, possibly. But, if you consider that a good reason, what about murdering one to save half a million? One thousand? Ten? Two?But then, the moment you accept the murder of one to save two others, you have to eliminate yourself, since it is easy enough to find those two murderers who each would have had two victims. And, to save those two lives, it becomes acceptable to take one other, specifically your own.Terry Pratchett, in &quot;Thud&quot;, said something that I think is relevant. In it, Sam Vimes insists on being home to read to his son every night without excuse. Because the moment he admitted a good reason, he opened the door for a host of bad ones. I believe the same applies here: it's better to not do Evil even for the best of reasons, because as soon as you open that door for the best reasons, you open it for progressively worse ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 3251920, member: 22424"] I've seen this question before. What it fails to take into account is that taking a single thread out of history has all sorts of knock-on effects that you can't foresee. Removing the tyrant might save those millions of lives... or it might see someone else in the leader's role, someone who doesn't make the mistakes that lead to that tyrant's eventual downfall. Even if you do save those millions of lives, you prevent two wars, and the advancements that come out of those wars. If one of those advancements is the weapons technology that is later vital in allowing Bruce Willis to prevent the impending asteroid impact and save the world, well... oops. The basic upshot is: don't mess with history. But, to tackle the question at the root of this: is it acceptable to murder one person to save the lives of one million? Well, possibly. But, if you consider that a good reason, what about murdering one to save half a million? One thousand? Ten? Two? But then, the moment you accept the murder of one to save two others, you have to eliminate yourself, since it is easy enough to find those two murderers who each would have had two victims. And, to save those two lives, it becomes acceptable to take one other, specifically your own. Terry Pratchett, in "Thud", said something that I think is relevant. In it, Sam Vimes insists on being home to read to his son every night without excuse. Because the moment he admitted a good reason, he opened the door for a host of bad ones. I believe the same applies here: it's better to not do Evil even for the best of reasons, because as soon as you open that door for the best reasons, you open it for progressively worse ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification