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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably the gorilla.

[IceSpear]

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)

[This account no longer in use.]

You know, Tony, maybe AAD is right about you.

[Anna Komnene]

I'm awful at swimming and when I was 18, I had to be rescued from drowning by a friend, so I know what it's like to be on the opposite side of this situation...

But even if I could swim like Katie Ledecky, I still wouldn't jump in to save Hitler.  I've read too many books and seen too many movies about the innocent people that he destroyed to do that.

[Figueira]

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.

No, deciding these things based on IQ is a terrible idea.

Anyway, I'd save the gorilla. Gorillas are practically human anyway.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The gorilla. Even if it's baby hitler.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The one who isn't a nazi.

And who is that?
 

[Figueira]

The gorilla. Even if it's baby hitler.

You would save a gorilla who is baby Hitler?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You know, Tony, maybe AAD is right about you.

As if you ever doubted it.

[Intell]

The gorilla. Even if it's baby hitler.

You would save a gorilla who is baby Hitler?

Would that be the same for every human being? If not, you are a truly horrible human being.

[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.

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".

It’s less that I’m interested in adjudicating whether or when a bad person, even a really bad person, loses the right to life and more that I’m trying to be honest enough about my own motivations and tendencies as a moral agent to not falsely say I wouldn’t, in this situation, choose to save the gorilla.

I am agnostic on whether or not it is possible for a human to lose the moral right to life (which does come before and in situations like this supersede the right to life of non-human animals) through evil actions, and correspondingly even more agnostic on at what point exactly that happens (if it does happen). I thus cannot say which, between Hitler and the gorilla, would have more of an objective claim on my moral attention. All I can say is that I would choose the ape and hope I’d made the right decision.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

How old ish**tler in this scenario?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It’s less that I’m interested in adjudicating whether or when a bad person, even a really bad person, loses the right to life and more that I’m trying to be honest enough about my own motivations and tendencies as a moral agent to not falsely say I wouldn’t, in this situation, choose to save the gorilla.

I am agnostic on whether or not it is possible for a human to lose the moral right to life, which does come before and in situations like this supersede the right to life of non-human animals, through evil actions, and correspondingly even more agnostic on at what point exactly that happens (if it does happen). I cannot say which, between Hitler and the gorilla, would have more of an objective moral claim on my attention. All I can say is that I would choose the ape and hope I’d made the right decision.

You're absolutely right that those are two separate questions, and the thread really did ask about the latter. I can't really say I know that I'd save Hitler if I could. I can certainly see situations where I couldn't bring myself to saving someone, depending on what they did and my emotional state at the time. I'm definitely not going to play holier than thou in this regard.

On the former question, however, I really have no doubt. I very strongly believe that, in a world where all our choices have consequences and should therefore constantly be subject to controls and restrictions (both legal and moral), there ought to be one choice, one single choice, that ought to belong entirely to the individual, and that can only be the choice of whether to live or die. I know you can't agree with that, but I hope it's a valid view to have.

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

To be clear, my position is that there should be a universal default assumption, both by the individual and by the other people and structures surrounding the individual, that the proper course of action is to continue to live or to allow to continue to live. I think that this is the only morally responsible way to work out agnosticism on the question of whether it's possible to lose the right (or relinquish the duty) to live. I certainly don't advocate a system in which some third party or group of third parties sits in judgment and decides who lives and who dies; I try to be very consistently against the death penalty.

But I do also think that we all occasionally face decisions where we won't know for sure what the right thing to do is. And when situations like that arise, I think we can be forgiven for defaulting to a sort of vulgar moral sentimentalism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To be clear, my position is that there should be a universal default assumption, both by the individual and by the other people and structures surrounding the individual, that the proper course of action is to continue to live or to allow to continue to live. I think that this is the only morally responsible way to work out agnosticism on the question of whether it's possible to lose the right (or relinquish the duty) to live. I certainly don't advocate a system in which some third party or group of third parties sits in judgment and decides who lives and who dies; I try to be very consistently against the death penalty.

I didn't mean to imply the contrary. Sorry if it came across that way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally I'd rather say that I know what the right thing to do is but wouldn't necessarily do it. That said, your view is one I take on other issues, and I have no grounds to object to your taking it on this one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Regardless where you guys stand...

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

Regardless where you guys stand...

I'd post the 'primate platoon' comic cover, but I see Ernest already did.

[Oakvale]

Harambe: Brought joy to millions

Hitler: Responsible for the genocide of the European Jewry


Hmmm tough one

[IceSpear]

Harambe: Brought joy to millions

Hitler: Responsible for the genocide of the European Jewry


Hmmm tough one

You're clearly not taking into account that if you kill Hitler, you must also kill Stalin and Pol Pot. Checkmate.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Rescue Hitler, laugh at his one testicle, call him a cuck and a failure then push him back in.

[SATW]

Save the Gorilla, easily (literally sane)


Hitler does not count as a human being to me.

[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)

[Badger]

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)

Most sane answer in the entire thread.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Two questions:

1. Do I know it's Adolf Hitler or all I can see is an unidentified man drowning in a river?
2. Is this Hitler before or after he came to power?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Rescue Hitler, then put him on trial for his atrocities.