3 ms·
> If you can end World War II a year early by giving Hitler amnesty for his crimes, you should. Though once you’ve ended the war and got Hitler in chains, the m
by bambax 3y ago
> If you can end World War II a year early by giving Hitler amnesty for his crimes, you should. Though once you’ve ended the war and got Hitler in chains, the morally best approach is to make him maximally suffer - and claim he died of a heart attack. The reputational harm will be trivial - and his millions of victims deserve no less.
Whoever wrote this, economics professor or not, is a psychopath who also has no word, which in my book places them lower than Tony Montana.
We're not in charge of avenging the victims of anyone.
It may be somewhat understandable to avenge one's next of kin; but avenging strangers is just a pretext for cruelty.
(The quote is also legally and logically incoherent, because once Hitler has been given amnesty, on what basis would one have him "in chains"??)
- notahacker 3y agoIf wanting to hurt Hitler makes people psychopathic, there aren't many people in the world who aren't psychopaths...
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoHitler had it all though. He killed his family, that's family punishment. He killed himself too, that's personal death sentence. 7000000 Germans died too, that's kin punishment. What evil can be invented to exceed this?
- dsego 3y agoWhy imprison anyone who commits crimes if they promise not to do it again? Isn't that a cruel punishment?
- Attrecomet 3y agoWhy would we put any weight to that promise in general? Or is the philosophical premise that humans never lie?
- pyrale 3y ago[flagged]
- bsza 3y ago> We're not in charge of avenging the victims of anyone. The analogy doesn’t state who you are in this hypothetical situation. So what if in fact you are exactly the one in charge of that? Does your moral compass change depending on whether you’re in the position of representing all of humanity?