Killing Hitler isn't morally justifiable
The categorical imperative says that the way to test the morality of an action is to think about what would happen is if everybody did it
Kill Hitler because he's a murderer - killing murderers is right
Everybody kills murderers, everybody becomes a murderer and gets killed
World is fucked
Prove me wrong
It doesn't matter because he killed himself like a pussy. Pathetic.
>>985685
The categorical imperative is flawed because it assumes that everyone doing the same thing is somehow ideal. But it's not - specialization is one of the defining characteristics of civilization.
Killing Hitler isn't morally justifiable*
*with the categorical imperative
There is a difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Hitler committed mass killings for no justifiable reason, hence he is a murderer. Killing someone who commits mass murder can be considered justifiable homicide. Your maxim would thus read 'it is right to kill those who commit unjustifiable killing of other people' and make far more sense. I don't think Kant would agree that homicide is ever justifiable, but at least that way you avoid the dilemma you put forward. Just bored and spitballing here.
>killing is the same as murder
>>985685
Who cares, he killed himself so nobody had to.
Take it you're not for the death penalty then?
If someone has committed murder and they are tried and found guilty in a court of law they should be hung by the neck until dead. No exceptions.
>>985779
>philosophy thread
>posts opinion with no supporting information
>>985798
>supporting information
Such as? The death penalty is nearly all based on opinion. There is proof in US states that it will decrease violent crime and deter criminals.
Where was philosophy mentioned, pleb?
>>985815
Did you miss the debate on morals?
>>985815
>There is proof in US states that it will decrease violent crime and deter criminals.
Weird. Everything I've ever seen in the research concludes otherwise.
In addition, how does proof in a court of law mean someone actually killed someone? Are you willing to have the blood of someone on your hands if you aren't 100% they did it? How many "murderers" have been released in the past few years who turned out to be falsely imprisoned? Would you condemn those men to death for your stupid eye for an eye bullshit?
That is not how the categorical imperative works, it doesn't say an action is immoral if "the world is fucked" when everyone does it. It says an action is immoral if willing it is contradictory.
>>985900
It's not a strawman. It's the reality of living in a world where DNA evidence is fairly new, and not even totally reliable until recently.
Propose to me a system where we would know 100% of the time whether someone was guilty and I'll support the death penalty.
You don't have an argument in the real world.
>>985685
why would i want to kill someone who did nothing wrong
>killing and murder are the same
Only to aspies who can't understand social context or cultural norms.
>>985882
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
>>985685
What sort of madman would possible defend the categorical imperative?
>>985685
OP I think that if you could somehow time travel in the past at a time before Hitler rises to power, you would have the moral obligation to kill him because you know what is going to happen. Not killing him would make you his accomplice and therefore would put you in a worse moral situation because you would be responsible for it.
>>985685
>categorical imperative
>implying we live in a world where if one person does something everyone does it
>implying ANYONE in the modern era goes for this garbage
>>985685
Killing Hitler isn't morally justifiable
The categorical imperative says that the way to test the morality of an action is to think about what would happen is if everybody did it
Kill Hitler because he's Hitler - Killing Hitler is right.
Everybody kills hitler, everybody becomes a hitler killer and the world is awesome.
Prove me wrong.
>>985982
*is
Fuck.
>>985982
>Kill Hitler because he's Hitler
Before you plunge the knife into Hitler, you're going to be thinking about all the people you saved/avenged. You kill Hitler because he kills people not "because he's Hitler"
>>986003
Fuck you. I kill Hitler because I want to kill Hitler.
>>985685
I'm happy with this, we need a world full of Hitler killers.
>>985685
This assumes that morality is correctly identified with the categorical imperative.
Also, the definition of murderer usually entails the unjustified initiation of aggression, so that "murder" does not necessarily just mean "somebody who kills a person". You can be pedantic and stubborn and argue otherwise, but this isn't how language works.
>>985685
If everybody tried to kill Hitler the world would still be okay.
>>985941
That's why we don't live in a world of absolutez and every law has a lot of footnotes saying "ok if this or this then blabla". And you are still not answering the question, which is if you already know that he is guilty of something quite horrible, would you advocate for death penalty? Also, why letting live guilty criminals has more weight than killing innocents considering that most crimimal cases are straight forward and the answer is pretty clear. You say that if for some fucked up reason we fuck up and kill one innocent, then the whole system falls appart? If you are taking about the real world, you are obviously imposing an unreachable ideal because it aids your point, but I could say that for any juridical principle ever. Your argument is YouTube comment section tier.
>>985685
The categorical imperative is retarded. There are entire categories of actions that are beneficial in some quantity, but not beneficial if everyone did them, such as the practice of any given profession that's useful for society.
>>985685
good thing we didn't kill hitler then
>>985685
Kill Hitler because he committed genocide - killing perpetrators of genocide is right
Everybody kills perpetrators of genocide, nobody becomes a perpetrator of genocide because perpetrators of genocide are not a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group.
Also categorical imperative is retarded and so are you for reason already listed in the thread
>>985941
He skull-fucked a baby to death under laboratory conditions IN the courtroom
Going past in time and killing Hitler is wrong, because you would change history so much that probably everyone who is alive at this moment would not be alive as they are now.
Thus by killing Hitler, you've killed billions of people.
>>985685
Here's the pertinent question:
Would killing Hilter changed much of anything? Perhaps the scope of the war, but between guys like Himmler or Goebbels, I don't see the Jews having a fun time in Germany.
The anti-semtism never started with Hitler. A "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Question" was part of German, and indeed some of European philosophical discussions decades before.
>>985693
Hitler is a top-tier, ascended troll. Plunge the whole world into war, murder gorillions of jews, slavs, and gypsies, then fuck off and die in a bunker. I can see why /pol/ loves him.
>>986525
>lmao I was just acting retarded kek
>>986525
>Hitler is a top-tier, ascended troll. Plunge the whole world into war
Not really.
>>986469
Or you would create billions of people since the millions who died during ww2 created families instead
>>986646
Jews made Hitler break his promises and invade Poland?
>>985685
the categorical imperative is dumb, obviously.
killing murderer is not right
because the murderer of the murderer dies is murdered as well
this is why murdering murderers is done by a non-person entity
so that the "rightness" of the act is not individualized
If you kill Hitler, then everyone kills Hitler.
...and that's okay.
>>986652
Does not excuse it.
>>986656
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:
"The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of conciliation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the 'democratic world.'...."
I'm shocked by how little the people ITT actually seem to know about Kant
>>985685
What about just locking him up instead?
>>985745
>Hitler committed mass killings for no justifiable reason
He justified them plenty, you just disagree with his reasons
>>985685
>Killing Hitler isn't morally justifiable
So when the Der Fuehrer put a bullet through his own cowardly skull while the sweet Aryan girls and women of the 1000 Year Reich were being gang raped incessantly in the streets of Berlin, that was morally wrong?
>>986914
desu, in my time as a philosophy student in an analytic department, I've heard more professors badmouth Kant than Hegel.
>>985685
>/pol/tard attemps philosophy
>it fails miserably
>>985685
>Kill Hitler because he's a murderer - killing murderers is right
Try harder
>>985685
Somebody have the SI unit thing for hitler?
