The Oldest Dilemma

The oldest dilemma in the world, and my academical curiosity to your answer. I was remembered of it yesterday, and I thought I'd give it a try.

If someone would point you to a child and tell you that this innocent child will grow to become totally evil and a ruthless dictator who will destroy millions of lives... could you kill that child?

However, as a result of his ruthless killings, people beforehand hardcore enemies will ally together and become the most peaceful neighbours; an event that wouldn't have happened had this tyrant never existed and killed millions.

What will you choose? Killing an innocent child, prevent millions of death, but no civilizations will ally together and form lasting peace, and might cause as much death as the dictator through war.
Or let the child grow to become the foretold killer, let it kill millions, but in return, civilizations drop their differences and form alliance and peace?

Your answer.

P.S.: No, I'm not referring to any existing or once alive dictator. This is actually an adapted version of such a dilemma that appeared in a tv show.

No one is innocent.

the end does not justify the means.

I am not a judge and I also do not like to be judged and who am I to decide who lives or dies?

I would let the kid live.

originally posted by: texasyeti
No one is innocent.

What an impressive comment, full of thought-provoking matters. /sarcasm



a reply to: Yavanna

The Dilemma is indeed a most strong one, Yavanna. But upon close examination, I feel that this dilemma has no value in a realist context.

Someone cannot just look at a youngling and "know" that in the future he will grow into a dictator. Such knowledge would only be certain if the observer was capable of time travel. So actually there is no real moral dilemma, and the only one in dilemma is those few of us who achieved time travel - namely, none of us yet.

Your proposition works only if you consider time as an absolute, objective, pre-written book. But since we live subjective lives inside time, since we are the one slowly writing the book's chapters, then I believe this makes the dilemma incompatible with realism.

Kill the prophet. They must be convincing if you'd entertain their words at all and a person who is convincing and delusional can create all sorts of chaos.

For one this is no dilemma, the Grandfarther paradox will rule on this.

The paradox is described as follows: the time traveller goes back in time and kills his grandfather before his grandfather meets his grandmother. As a result, the time traveller is never born. But, if he was never born, then he is unable to travel through time and kill his grandfather, which means the traveller would then be born after all, and so

I know the child is not your Grandfarther but none the less same principle.
I wouldn't kill the child but In fact change a few variables.

protect the child even at the cost of my own life. unless of course if my life was in danger as a direct consequence of doing so.

a reply to: muSSang

The grandfather paradox is an apparent paradox caused by those human minds who cannot think four-dimensionally.

Actually, in the example you quote, the time traveller's existence is preserved, the reason being as simple as the fact that historical change move at a finite speed across time (namely, one second per second). Since the traveller too is moving at the same speed in time, then the paradox never contacts the traveller's location in his (or her) relative time.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: muSSang

The grandfather paradox is an apparent paradox caused by those human minds who cannot think four-dimensionally.

Actually, in the example you quote, the time traveller's existence is preserved, the reason being as simple as the fact that historical change move at a finite speed across time (namely, one second per second). Since the traveller too is moving at the same speed in time, then the paradox never contacts the traveller's location in his (or her) relative time.

All that is irrelevant because it is the world-line in the space-time continuum that matters. The grandfather parodox arises because returning in time to kill your grandfather would eliminate your existence, which would mean that your time travel never happened, so that your grandfather survived, allowing you to exist and to travel back in time to kill him, eliminating your existence, and so on ad infinitum..... There is a real logical paradox that physicists have resolved (with some controversy) only by resorting to the Uncertainty Principle, according to which world lines are fuzzy, not sharp. Arguments based upon classical physics do not solve the paradox.

a reply to: 3n19m470

So protect them at the cost of your own life as long as it doesn't cost you your life? I'm not sure you know what "at the cost of your own life" means.

a reply to: Yavanna

It works as fiction, but we will never have to make such a choice in reality.

Perhaps we need to call a Doctor?

a reply to: micpsi

I believe you misundertand.

You are saying that if the time traveller kills his grandfather (cause), his existence (effect) would instantaneously become false.

I say that if the time traveller kills his grandfather (cause), his existence (effect) would become false only if the change in history has infinite speed all across time. In reality, the effect of the cause would actually be delayed forever, and this is because everyone is moving in the same vector than the historical change itself.

An analogy: you tell a robot to shoot itself, but the robot then moves at the same direction and speed than the bullet. The cause is there but the effect takes forever to be implemented.

The question is simple. It doesn't matter how you know the query. You know. Do you, or don't you? How hard is that. Quit complicating the defecation out of something that isn't.

For me, the answer is simple. You let life and death run their course, because we have no way of knowing what else will be affected by changing the course of events.

a reply to: Yavanna

If we are talking absolute peace as a result of letting the boy live, then i let him live. My hands are clean, one more world war, and peace reigns for eternity.

If we are talking about going back in time, then you could , in some theories, create infinite new time lines. You could try multiple courses of action and create many new scenarios. In one of them i woould kill the kid, in one i would let him live. But in these scenarios, my original timeline would most likely be unchanged.

This proposition is most likely a trap to get you to admit that you would consider killing a young child in order to save millions, but with the added point that world peace would erupt if you allow him to kill millions, In which case it comes down to the ends justifying the means. You will always get a split demographic. I would think most people would want to keep their hands clean though. If it comes down to a numbers game, then i think the ends does justify the means.


Let a miliion die to save countless trillions who will live eternity in world peace? And all i have to do is not kill a child? That is a simple answer. I wouldn't kill the kid. Easy peasy.

a reply to: Yavanna
Oh, Yavanna you naughty girl. Your trying to short cut the result of the present doctors dilemma. Does he kill Davros or doesn't he? Will he be right or wrong if he killed Davros.
Just watch the series and be satisfied with the conclusion. Or better still wait for the end of the series and post the same question again.
For the Americans on here ( as her profile location is the TARDIS) she's talking about Doctor Who s latest dilemma.

So how come nobody killed Hitler?

His dad tried…apparently beating him so badly once, he almost died.

Stephen King addressed this in a book, The Dead Zone. The movie The Matrix also caught it when Cypher can't pull the plug on NEO because, "He is the One".

If we see forward in time to some event, regardless of what we want do about it, that's the way the events will occur.Tthere will be another Hitler, he will kill millions, and there ain't nothing anyone can do about it.

Shouldn't stop us from trying, either. Hitlers own officers tried vainly several times, now they are heroes. See that other movie, Operation Valkyrie.

Edit: Can't pull the plug on someone if they are "the One".

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Yavanna
Oh, Yavanna you naughty girl. Your trying to short cut the result of the present doctors dilemma. Does he kill Davros or doesn't he? Will he be right or wrong if he killed Davros.
Just watch the series and be satisfied with the conclusion. Or better still wait for the end of the series and post the same question again.
For the Americans on here ( as her profile location is the TARDIS) she's talking about Doctor Who s latest dilemma.

Not at all, my dear one. I know in advance the Doctor won't kill Davros, he'll shoot the hands threatening Davros. He'd take the 1/1000 chance that Davros can change his mind.

Yes, I remembered about the dilemma because it was brought back by Doctor Who, but believe it or not, I had it in mind for quite awhile, and was always curious of the majority answer. DW just got me the kick in the behind to finally post it.

However, many members here have given extremely good points against the dilemma, points I never realized existed beyond Yes, No, No I'll change the kid's mind.

a reply to: swanne

.... Damn, that's a good point.

a reply to: chr0naut



I know it will never happen in real life. Many philosophical debates won't ever happen in real life. That doesn't mean we can't have a few philosophical dilemma once in awhile to explore humanity.

Do whatever you feel at the time..For every decision you make , multiple universes are split off of the one. So , each universe would have a different outcome. Not just the 2 mentioned in the OP .
Thus , it turns out you could go back in time and do away with your grandfather. You would just split off into another universe where he was not actually your grandfather