How We Can Use Moral Ethics to Justify Killing Baby Hitler (With a Time Machine of Course)

In this crazy complex world we live in, I think we can all agree on two things as being absolute. Tacos are delicious, and Adolph Hitler was a bad dude. Many have discussed what it would be like if Hitler had been killed before he committed his disgusting crimes on humanity. One such idea is going back in time to kill Hitler as a baby. The idea turned into a question that is a thought-provoking one, getting various answers from different people. Many deciding that killing baby Hitler would be an easy task.

But if you were in a position to kill an innocent baby in cold blood, would you be able to do it right then and there at that moment? Would you make the more teleological or deontological choice? Which one would be the morally ethic thing to do?

The correct answer would be a consequential one, or a teleological solution to the very dark question presented.

But first, let's take a look at Deontology, the rule-following brother of Teleology.

The word Deontology has its roots in ancient Greek, Deon meaning "duty" and logos involving science.

So by its linguistic origins, it is the science of formal duty on a philosophical scale. It adheres to a narrow view of right and wrong as if it is set in stone and cannot be crossed.

Telling white lies or physically harming another human being under any circumstances is prohibited. Because lying and hurting others is wrong. Even if performing one of these acts could help people (i.e., lying to protect your friend from getting in trouble, or fighting off a man trying to harm your significant other), using this form of moral ethics does not allow such things.

In the case of killing Hitler, Deontological ethics would believe it wrong to murder anyone because murder within itself is wrong. And since it is therefore wrong, it then becomes a moral rule that must be followed at all times. Making them into an ethical code that, even if society loses its structure, will always dictate what you should and should not do.

For example, even if laws making it illegal to commit murder or steal things were cast aside in favor of a more unstructured anarchist society, the code would still stand up the new chaos as a moral compass, directing people from doing whatever they wanted to do.

But therein lies the problem with Deontology. You are doing something right just because it is right. This principle, as stated earlier, has a problem with seeing the potential upside in doing things like telling white lies. An excellent example of this would be a friend going to jail for marijuana possession. This friend needs you to bail them out, but you are staunchly against drugs. Even though the drugs didn't belong to your friend, you still believe that he deserves to be in jail for having marijuana in his car that he was holding for another friend. To you, the rules are the rules.

So when it comes to the idea of killing one man to save millions making more logical sense, the rule of never committing murder still stands firmly against it. Not murdering someone for the sake of not killing someone can become dangerous within itself if put under this particular context.

Of course, most mentally healthy people would agree that murdering is wrong because taking someone's life in most cases is undoubtedly the wrong thing to do. But in situations like deciding to kill a man like Hitler or killing enemies in the war to save the people of your country from death or captivity, the rule for many people can be bent. This bending stems from the justification of the killing towards a greater good. These ideas come from much more conceptual Teleology.

Teleology, also called consequentialism, takes its principles from its namesake. Consequences define the moral code of Teleology in that the morally inclined choices one makes must be dependent on how the outcome will affect them or others.

So instead of seeing the right thing as their infallible duty, this moral code allows one to see past the rules and to what the consequences of said rules are.

Some arguments say this theory doesn't conflict with Deontology, however in a way it does. The conflict, being that one would have a very different train of thought when choosing whether or not to kill Hitler.

Teleology is going to look past the initial murder, and see the consequences of the murder instead. If Hitler is not born, then there will be no one to create the Third Reich and commit genocide against multiple people groups as well as starting a war that would kill millions of other people.

Ethically, Teleology would say that killing Hitler would be for the greater "good." The "good" is a quintessential part of how Teleology morally goes about its business. The problem, though, is that this greater good can be literally anything to the individual. For example, Hitler thought it was best for society to rid it of genetic hindrances such as disabled people, jews, and other minorities because it would preserve the Arian race that he believed by natural selection was superior. In other words, in his mind, he was doing what he felt was best for humanity. To him, this was the greater good.

Another example is the character Thanos from the Marvel movie franchise. The mad titan made it his moral obligation to exterminate half the life in the universe to save it. Not thinking about the consequences, only that it was his duty to save the universe from extinction through overpopulation. To Thanos, the greater good was saving the universe by partially destroying it. While all of these "goods" are obviously evil to us, they are not to the ones who saw them as the best solution to the problems around them; they felt morally obligated to solve.

That is one major flaw in the ethics behind Teleology. It's ambiguous, and that means anyone can twist it to fit whatever good they see fit despite it being destructive or harmful to others.

Even with Hitler, one could argue that the war still would've happened anyway if Hitler had not been allowed to live past infancy gave Germany's desire for revenge on Europe. It is, therefore, making Hitler obsolete, and it pointless to kill him.

But I would argue that given the knowledge of the way Hitler was able to make Germany more powerful than any other could and that killing 6 million people through genocide alone makes him a much more dangerous alternative to other potential leaders, therefore it would be the right thing to kill him.

One could certainly say that ethically, it would be wrong to commit murder, even against someone as evil as Hitler.

But it is just as evil to let him live. In a way, you will be inadvertently murdering millions. Assassinating one person who plans to kill millions is better than letting him do so. That is the greater good. Even if it entails breaking the law or the ethical code you've had since you were small.