Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 92679" data-attributes="member: 2525">How about we alter this discussion a bit, to clarify the moral question.&nbsp; It isn't more realistic, but I think it is clearer.Assume you have the ability to travel back to a moment in 1939.&nbsp; You are standing near Hitler, have a gun, and you believe you can kill him.&nbsp; To kill him, you will have to shoot through someone you believe is innocent &quot;good&quot; person, and it may kill that innocent person.&nbsp; (No, you cannot go to a different time, or alter the situation in any way. You have only one choice, shoot through the innocent person to kill Hitler, or not shoot at all and return to your own time). Do you shoot, or not?I know, the immediate complaint will be that this is not a good analogy, because the PC's had plenty of other options, and raise dead was also a factor. That is NOT the point I am trying to get at here.&nbsp; The only point I'm trying to clarify is this: Is it a &quot;good&quot; action to only care about stopping an &quot;evil&quot; person (to prevent future deaths of &quot;good&quot; people), even at the potential death of one &quot;good&quot; person?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 92679, member: 2525"] How about we alter this discussion a bit, to clarify the moral question. It isn't more realistic, but I think it is clearer. Assume you have the ability to travel back to a moment in 1939. You are standing near Hitler, have a gun, and you believe you can kill him. To kill him, you will have to shoot through someone you believe is innocent "good" person, and it may kill that innocent person. (No, you cannot go to a different time, or alter the situation in any way. You have only one choice, shoot through the innocent person to kill Hitler, or not shoot at all and return to your own time). Do you shoot, or not? I know, the immediate complaint will be that this is not a good analogy, because the PC's had plenty of other options, and raise dead was also a factor. That is NOT the point I am trying to get at here. The only point I'm trying to clarify is this: Is it a "good" action to only care about stopping an "evil" person (to prevent future deaths of "good" people), even at the potential death of one "good" person? [/QUOTE]

Verification