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

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's utterly f**ked up, but I'm tired of discussing this, so I'll follow Joe after all. Let's agree to disagree.

[IceSpear]

Only on Atlas would this be a controversial question.

[Devout Centrist]

Hitler. Then I tie his body to the gorilla's corpse and push him into a vat of acid.

Win-win.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

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!!!!

Gorillas are Libertarians? That makes since.

[DINGO Joe]

Neither, apparently everyone has forgotten what happens in the future when the Apes are in charge.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither, apparently everyone has forgotten what happens in the future when the Apes are in charge.

I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z...

[DINGO Joe]

Neither, apparently everyone has forgotten what happens in the future when the Apes are in charge.

I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z...

Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius

Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hitler, because I don't want the rive to end up polluted.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Only on Atlas would this be a controversial question.

Which is why 86% of posters chose the morally wrong answer...

[Joe Republic]

Only on Atlas would this be a controversial question.

Which is why 86% of posters chose the morally wrong answer...

Let it go.  You've lost this one.

[Intell]

Only on Atlas would this be a controversial question.

Which is why 86% of posters chose the morally wrong answer...

Let it go.  You've lost this one.

Antiono'ss not wrong, but it would strictly depend on Hitler's life, before are after he instituted concentration camps etc.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Only on Atlas would this be a controversial question.

Which is why 86% of posters chose the morally wrong answer...

Let it go.  You've lost this one.

Antiono'ss not wrong, but it would strictly depend on Hitler's life, before are after he instituted concentration camps etc.

No, it wouldn't. That would only make him lose his humanity in a figurative sense.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If saving Hitler means being indirectly responsible for other people's deaths, then that's a very different situation, obviously. But I don't think that was what the question was supposed to mean.

Otherwise, indirectly killing Hitler is still a violation of the absolute right he has as a human being. That's not the right way make him pay for his crimes - in fact it doesn't even really make him pay for his crimes.

[Murica!]

If saving Hitler means being indirectly responsible for other people's deaths, then that's a very different situation, obviously. But I don't think that was what the question was supposed to mean.

Otherwise, indirectly killing Hitler is still a violation of the absolute right he has as a human being. That's not the right way make him pay for his crimes - in fact it doesn't even really make him pay for his crimes.

Where does this "absolute right" come from?

[Joe Republic]

In a similar hypothetical, but with [tw] Donald Trump vs Koko, or even a beloved family pet, I know which one I'd choose to save, and it wouldn't even be close.  I'd consider myself fully morally justified, too.

[TDAS04]

Human life does outweigh animal life overall, but Antonio is clearly wrong in this thread.  Of course an innocent ape deserves to be saved more than one of the most lethal tyrants in history.

[Goldwater]

Wait, Hitler has an about right to not even be indirectly killed by anybody? WTF?

[Wells]

Wait, Hitler has an about right to not even be indirectly killed by anybody? WTF?

I actually can't believe that this has to be explained. The gorilla didn't do anything wrong.

And then there's Hitler.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If saving Hitler means being indirectly responsible for other people's deaths, then that's a very different situation, obviously. But I don't think that was what the question was supposed to mean.

Otherwise, indirectly killing Hitler is still a violation of the absolute right he has as a human being. That's not the right way make him pay for his crimes - in fact it doesn't even really make him pay for his crimes.

Where does this "absolute right" come from?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" etc. (just to cite one source, there are others)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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".

[Murica!]

If saving Hitler means being indirectly responsible for other people's deaths, then that's a very different situation, obviously. But I don't think that was what the question was supposed to mean.

Otherwise, indirectly killing Hitler is still a violation of the absolute right he has as a human being. That's not the right way make him pay for his crimes - in fact it doesn't even really make him pay for his crimes.

Where does this "absolute right" come from?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" etc. (just to cite one source, there are others)

My god thats the spookiest sh**t I've ever seen

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What if a trolley was headed down a track and about to run over a tied up Hitler, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un and Augusto Pinochet. You can throw a switch to change it but that'll run over a box of kittens on the other track. Do you throw the switch?

[Antonio the Sixth]

What if a trolley was headed down a track and about to run over a tied up Hitler, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un and Augusto Pinochet. You can throw a switch to change it but that'll run over a box of kittens on the other track. Do you throw the switch?

The answer doesn't change however you phrase the question.

[Sir Mohamed]

The one who isn't a nazi.