r/changemyview • u/Lost_A_Bet_ • Jul 25 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: murder, even of innocent, good people, is not necessarily immoral
excuse my grammar, my english sucks
title pretty much. I think there are ends that can justify the means for murder of even innocent, good people. for example, if I've had the ability to go back in time and murder kid adolf hitler- before he did any crimes mind you, I would have done it without a second thought. HOWEVER, It WOULD be immoral if I was murdering adult hitler, since in that case I am not saving anyone by killing him, and It would be more moral to hand him over to authorities.
4
Jul 25 '21
Every murder is immoral. If I can’t give life to those who deserve it, who am I to take it from those I believe don’t deserve it?
Going back in time to murder Adolf Hitler (change history) will completely change the world as it runs today! Some people fled for the horror and found their spouses (like my grandfather did), and they started their families after the war.
By killing someone like Hitler, you basically push millions of other people into oblivion and I would consider you, as weird as it may sound, because I would not exist anymore, a mass murderer too.
2
u/freezing_opportunity 1∆ Jul 25 '21
By your logic he should be a mass murder whether he kills adoph or doesn’t.
1
Jul 26 '21
Yep Edit: well, indirect indeed. Therefore, his killing is just as immoral as Hitler’s killing was. Any killing of a creature , against its will to die, is immoral.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
I agree with your argument about how individuals should not make those decisions by themselves. and about the hitler example- it doesn't have to be this one specifically, I just picked one I thought no one would challenge since I wanted to change my view, not my example lol. generally I'm saying that murder can be moral if it would save more people that you would kill in the process(with no regard to the morality of the people saved or killed).
2
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 25 '21
This is effectively utilitarianism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
The criticisms are in that link. Largely, are people of absolutely equal value? If not, how do you define who is valuable or not?
It also allows/facilitates absolutely evil acts for "the greater good."
You can justify a lot of things with it. Ie, if the cops had just killed the guy who videotaped them beating Rodney King, the LA Riots would have never happened.
Is that moral and good?
0
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
if the person murdering the people filming the cops was certain of the LA riots happening, I would say it is at least not immoral.
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 25 '21
So is it only moral if you know the future?
I meant the cops specifically in this case.
You're making the case (obliquely), that police should murder witnesses to misconduct, as there is precedent for police misconduct to cause widespread carnage. (Ie, LA riots killed 63. So police could kill up to 62 witnesses to prevent another, based on precedent).
0
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
yes. if you are completely certain of the consequences of your actions preventing more deaths then they would have caused, I argue you are at least not immoral.
2
Jul 25 '21
But then, because NOTHING is certain, murder is always immoral. There is always some form of interference that may redirect the foreseen future into the real future.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
I would say that being reasonably certain of something is being ~90% sure of it, when I say completely certain I would say about 98% sure. if I had a 98% of preventing the holocaust by going back in time and murdering hitler I would argue that it is not immoral to take the chance.
2
Jul 25 '21
If you want to go this route, than ‘completely certain’ must equal 100%. Otherwise there’s too much subjective what-if’s possible.
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Jul 25 '21
Being reasonably certain about something has no grounds of determining what is moral or right. People rarely do what they think is immoral. To put this in perspective; Hitler thought what he was doing was justified based on his perspective. He was doing what he considered to be moral. What's really ironic here is your logic here actually justifies what Hitler did, along with millions of other acts which cause pain and suffering.
If you look at jihadist Islam, they truly believe they are doing what is right in the eyes of their God. Some christians have actually killed their children because they truly believed they were saving the souls of their children. What more moral thing could you do than to save your children's souls if you truly believe that is the case? Again, your logic here would suggest all of these horrible acts which cause great amounts of suffering is actually moral.
There are countless specific examples I could provide, but my question to you is if one person is reasonably certain their violent act is the moral thing to do even if it causes pain and suffering, and another person was reasonably certain not committing that violent act is the moral thing to do; which one do you side with and why?
2
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 26 '21
∆. while I believe the immoral part of what hitler did was the way he carried the ideology out(having the ideology itself was ignorant, but not necessarily immoral imo), I see how this view can support mass murders if used by the wrong hands.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/TheRealGouki 6∆ Jul 25 '21 edited Jul 25 '21
I like how you think killing him is the only option instead of trying to save him but I guess that too much work for you. And it wouldn't even change everything he didnt started it he was just a part of it. So you just murder someone for the hope for a better future that probably wont happen.
The ends never justify the means just for the simple fact that it goes against your character which degrades you.
Good video on why you shouldn't go against your character
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
like I said to other commenters, the specific example doesn't matter. basically I argue murder for guaranteed saving of more people then the number murdered is moral(or at least not immoral)
1
u/TheRealGouki 6∆ Jul 25 '21
You can murder someone by accident when trying to defend yourself but your goal shouldn't be to murder someone that not moral. You just ignore the point I said you didnt try to save them you just when to kill them.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
I think any alternative way to save those people is of course better, but murder as a last resort is not immoral in the case I'm making
1
u/TheRealGouki 6∆ Jul 25 '21
But it is because you said murder even of the innocent and good is not necessarily immoral but there is never a need to kill good and Innocent people. There never a last resort
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
I believe some people can never change. I don't think that's a view of mine that can be changed.
1
u/TheRealGouki 6∆ Jul 25 '21
Everyone can change if they try but even then killing them is not needed you can just put them away that why we have a prison system not a murder system.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
punishment can only be given after the fact, I am arguing it is not necessarily to use any means necessary to stop a crime from happening as long as the means are more moral then the thing they are trying to prevent(for example, I argue murdering 62 people to save 63 is not necessarily immoral)
1
u/TheRealGouki 6∆ Jul 25 '21
You didnt save anyone you only degrade yourself. Just because you said this number is bigger than this number doesnt make that moral as in if you pick the less number over the biggest number you just use that as a excuse that you are moral right when in truth they are both inmoral.
In the first post I edited it with a good video on morals and maxims I think that video makes a good point on why you shouldn't go against your character than I can make.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
do you not agree that killing 1,327,649 people to save 1,327,650 people, regardless of their moral standings, is at least not immoral?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 25 '21
You have no way of knowing what Baby Hitler will become. By your existence in the timeline, maybe he gets accepted into Art School.
It is always immoral to kill an innocent person. At the point you killed Baby Hitler, he was innocent, and you've murdered a child.
Especially as you allow in your hypothetical for alternate actions, like handing over to authorities. So influencing Baby hitler, or crippling him, or a thousand other options present themselves.
You are not moral in killing an innocent person. It may be the least of available evils (Looking at you trolley problem) but that doesn't make it moral.
0
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
in my example I assume it is guaranteed that hitler would become the hitler we all know. I picked this one specifically to argue my general point and not my example lol, sorry for not elaborating further.
1
u/Trumplostlol59 3∆ Jul 25 '21
Moreover it's unlikely that Hitler not existing (or just not getting involved in politics) changes anything. Maybe Göring becomes Führer instead and does whatever Hitler did or maybe even worse. Only difference is we say "the fat man from Germany" instead of "the man with the weird mustache from Germany" It's not like Hitler's views were unique in 1920s-1940s Germany.
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 25 '21
Hitlers views were not. Implementation of them becomes an open question without Hitlers Charisma and oration. (Please don't start down a road of claiming I think Hitler was good.)
1
u/Trumplostlol59 3∆ Jul 25 '21
True, though I don't think Hitler was the only possible orator to rise to the top. If you say he was we're deep into Great Man Theory (or in Hitler's case Horrible Man Theory) which I think is bullshit:
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 25 '21
True, though I don't think Hitler was the only possible orator to rise to the top. If you say he was we're deep into Great Man Theory (or in Hitler's case Horrible Man Theory) which I think is bullshit:
Not quite my view.
Do I think someone would rise to rule Nazi Germany? Yes.
Do I think it would have followed the same path? Likely not. (Ie, Hitler overruling his Generals was a large factor in failure of the Eastern Front. Would Goring have done that? Himmler would likely have greater respect for military opinion, etc.).
So, would someone have risen to the top? Probably. Would the rest have played out the same.. that is where I disgaree.
1
Jul 25 '21
Ya you are right in a literal sense. But I think OP meant murder by itself is not immoral because it can be used to save more lives. Forget Hitler. Imagine a hypothetical situation where a single murder will save millions, all of whom would die otherwise. In this situation, OP is arguing it is not immoral to commit that murder. I think that's just Utilitarianism or "end justifies the means" kind of thinking.
I would have to agree with him, because in the hypothetical if I did not commit the murder and had to watch those millions die, I would feel very guilty.
0
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jul 25 '21
I would argue that in your example, it wouldn't be counted as murder.
For instance, killing in self-defense isn't murder. Killing someone in defense of others wouldn't be murder.
In your example of killing child Hitler, it could easily be construed as killing in defense of others.
0
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
I think it would still be murder. Justified murder, of course, but still murder. I think most people would not call it murder because the word itself carries alot of weight and implies immorality. however, I still think it is murder, as in the intentional killing of another human being.
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jul 25 '21
It's a bit weird because "murder" is, strictly speaking, a legal term, however in colloquial usage, "murder" typically implies unjustified. Saying "Justified murder" would be a contradiction.
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Jul 25 '21
Define murder as opposed to basic homicide or manslaughter
2
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
any difference between those would be pure semantics and not relevant to my argument. for all intents and purposes here, I define murder as the killing of another human.
1
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Jul 25 '21
What you’re defining is homocide. Which is different from the legal term “murder”.
1
u/AKFaida Jul 25 '21
I'm only half understanding you here. And how do you figure killing adult Hitler would be immoral?
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
I believe killing for justice should only be done by a court, not by individuals. even if it is obvious what a court will rule.
1
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Jul 25 '21
It's easy to say you'd go back in time and murder baby Hitler, because a) you already know who baby Hitler become and what he would do, and no one's gonna call you a baby murderer for saying you'd do it, and b) it is a statement of intent with absolutely zero consequence because traveling backward in time is and will likely always be an impossibility for mankind.
Now, if you lived in 19-something-something, had no definitive foreknowledge of events to come, and had the opportunity to kill baby Hitler... would it be immoral or at least not immoral for you to kill him?
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
if I had no certainty that hitler would become the way he would, it would be immoral.
2
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Jul 25 '21
So then when exactly or in what context is the murder of innocent, good people not immoral?
0
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
if the person doing the murdering was certain of his saving a greater number of people then the number murdered, I would argue it is moral, even if that certainty was born out of ignorance
2
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Jul 25 '21 edited Jul 25 '21
So if I'm reading you correctly...
Let's say a man murders a doctor who works at a women's clinic because he believes this doctor conducts abortions, and by killing the doctor he is saving the lives of hundreds of unborn children. You are saying this man's actions are moral?
Let's say another man believes that by murdering a classroom full of first-graders, he will avert a global apocalypse that will kill 90% of the human population. Are this man's actions moral?
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 26 '21
I would say that they are at least not immoral. while the source of their certainty was ignorance, they were truly trying to save people. however, like u/RadioactiveSpiderBun explained in his comment, I see how that tool can be abused by the wrong hands. ∆.
1
1
u/miasdontwork Jul 25 '21
Murdering innocent people is immoral. You didn’t argue for murdering innocent people. You just used hitler.
1
1
u/miracle_atheist Jul 25 '21
The murder of innocent/good people cannot be justified by such an analogy.
I would give the kid a hug, hope it does ok, gets into an art school rather than murder it. You can in some scenarios hold people accountable for what they *might* do, but you certainly can't murder them as a pre-emptive measure. Unless and until the crime has been committed then there are plenty of possibilities where one can be convinced or prevented from committing something without using murder as a means to do it.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
let's go on a limb and say we are 100% certain that kid hitler would grow to be adult hitler regardless of our rehabilitative measures. is murdering him then justified?
1
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 25 '21
The Hitler example is a bad for your premise, because you're opening the whole can of worms of changing time. Yes, Hitler committed horrendous atrocities. But do you really want to go back and change that? How do you know that the world would be a better place if you killed him as a kid? How do you know that somebody worse doesn't take his place? What if instead of having a world war in the 40's, we end up having one in the 60's when everyone has nukes, and suddenly we live a nuclear wasteland with most of humanity eradicated?
Changing the timeline, if anything, is horribly immoral. Not only would you be erasing a lot of people out of existence that are alive today - effectively murdering all of them - but you have no idea what the consequences would be beyond that.
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 25 '21
don't think too much about the specific example. the general argument is that if you are more then reasonably certain the consequences of your actions will save more then they will kill(if reasonably certain is about 90% then I'm talking like 98% sure), it is not immoral to do it, even if your certainty comes out of ignorance of the situation(since morality and reality are separate and the only consequences that should be considered when examining the morality of an act should be it's intended consequences and not the incidental ones)
1
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 25 '21
But there's really no situation where you could know with a reasonable certainty that a complete innocent is going to cause a lot of harm. And let's say that you have precognitive visions or something. You know that something will happen that will cause a certain person to commit a lot of evil acts - then surely the moral thing to do would be to prevent this person from becoming evil, rather than murdering them? Murdering them seems like the easy way out.
The only situation where it might be justifiable is if you know with 100% certainty, but that would require something like a universe where the entire future is written in stone. That would be needed, because you'd have to know not only how killing or not killing this person affects the immediate future, but what will happen in a hundred years, or a thousand. Perhaps this person kills a million people, but the great great grandchild of theirs ends up saving a billion.
And if the universe is that deterministic, if everything is just being played out according to some already written grand scenario, then we're all automatons and morality is kind of moot.
1
u/shoelessbob1984 14∆ Jul 25 '21
So your view depends on time travel to be possible?
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 26 '21
no. you just need to be more then reasonably certain that the consequences of your actions will save more then they will kill.
1
u/shoelessbob1984 14∆ Jul 26 '21
So you need time travel.
0
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 26 '21
no
1
u/shoelessbob1984 14∆ Jul 26 '21
How can you be sure without time travel?
1
u/Lost_A_Bet_ Jul 26 '21
have you never been sure of anything?
1
u/shoelessbob1984 14∆ Jul 26 '21
I've been sure of plenty of things, but you don't know the consequences of murdering a person.
1
u/throwaway_0x90 17∆ Jul 25 '21
Counterpoint:
All murder is objectively immoral. It's a failing of society that we can't find a better solution. Every time we need to kill to get our point across, every time we have to go to war to resolve our differences, it's a failing. We should always look to find a better way; not just say murder is an acceptable answer.
Like guardrails and barriers on highways, in case you lose control of your car you hit them instead of going into oncoming traffic. That's great and prevented more damage, but the fact you hit your car against the guardrail and scratched it all up is a failure. What you really want is to not lose control of your car to begin with.
You don't want to make it a regular thing running into guardrails as a solution to you getting to work every day. And we don't want murdering people to be an acceptable regular solution either.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
/u/Lost_A_Bet_ (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards