Adolf Hitler and a gorilla are drowning in a river. You can only save 1.

[Kingpoleon]

I'd risk my life for neither.  If there was no risk to myself, the gorilla.  I wouldn't save Hitler if I could save both.

[Kingpoleon]

This isn't the exact same question, but who would you save - A) Hitler or B) a person with an IQ score of 0-30?

For me, it's obviously the second person, at least knowing what Hitler is capable of. 

Is he capable of living a richer, more reflective, more human, more meaningful life with a broader range of thoughts and emotions.?  Sure.  but I don't care, because he is evil.  F*** him.

Narrowly BRTD over Hitler.

[Kingpoleon]

Which one is the fiscal conservative and which one is the social conservative? That will play a role.

Western Hitler is more fiscally conservative, while eastern Hitler is more socially conservative.

and the gorilla is SOCIAL LIBERAL, FISCLA CONSREVERVTVE!!!!

Yes, but isn't Hitler a Reagan Democrat?

[Kingpoleon]

On further consideration I'd probably save the gorilla.

Sorry, Antonio, but, while in almost any other hypothetical of this kind I'd agree with you, it's Hitler.

If you start making exceptions for Hitler, it's very easy to be tempted to make more. Past and present times are ripe with horrible people who did horrible things. Where do we draw the line, then? Surely, it can't be only Hitler, or someone should explain to the victims of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot why their tormentors weren't bad enough to deserve the same fate. And then, what about Franco, Suharto and the like? They killed a lot of people - not quite as many as those others, but is that really a relevant distinction? And why stop at tyrants? What about Tim McVeigh, Omar Mateen or the forever-unnamed people who bombed Piazza Fontana? What about Charles Manson? How many people does someone need to have killed to deserve being left to die? Isn't one enough? And hell, why stop at killers? Aren't some acts even worse than murder? What does Josef Fritzl deserve?

And yes, I realize it's a bit rich for me to make a slippery slope argument after I've rejected such arguments in other discussions (including with you). I just think this is the one right that can't tolerate any exception without eventually collapsing altogether. Also, as much as I like virtue ethics, I'm very suspicious of any moral reasoning that tends to divide humanity into "bad people" and "everybody else".

Yes, I'd save the gorilla over all of those (normal)

I'm not sure I'd save either, because the gorilla would probably kill me if I tried to save it.(controversial, I know)