The Oldest Dilemma

Let the child live - easy choice for me to be honest.

What would be a much more difficult choice would be if the child didn't bring about world peace as therefore there would be a perceived benefit to stopping the oncoming holocaust.

But just to murder a child in cold blood for what they will do - I don't see myself capable of such an act.

I could wait and watch and intervene to stop an act but could not completely pre-empt.

a reply to: Yavanna
Naughty again Yavanna. The episode doesn't air till this Saturday and now you have spoilt it for me. How do you know the outcome, or are you just guessing.
I think the Doctor will let the hands take him and the hands will set him on the path of evil.

Whoops, I forgot to answer your post.
Using your scenario one must assume that to know in advance the outcome of anyones life there must be an element of time travel. And therein lies the dilemma as has already been explained.
Different realities give different results ie. are the people telling you he WILL be evil in adulthood seeing the timeline you are in?
It is not a reasonable assumtion that if you kill him it would or would not alter that time line as his missing from that time line another might rise to take his place with the same end result. One must also concider that the person telling you about his future evil might be lying and he really is the force for future good.
Or to use a line from"you know what" "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Good line that.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Yavanna
Naughty again Yavanna. The episode doesn't air till this Saturday and now you have spoilt it for me. How do you know the outcome, or are you just guessing.
I think the Doctor will let the hands take him and the hands will set him on the path of evil.

I'm guessing, silly. Usually my guesses are right... I'm just deducing from much of what he said, and what he did in his past lives. First, when Davros says that his chance for survival are 1/1000, Doctor answers that he'll always take the 1. That makes me think that upon looking at this yet innocent kid, he'll take the 1/1000 chance that by saving his life, Davros will learn compassion, and change history. Or at least, if Davros doesn't, at least the Doctor feels like it wasn't his fault, unlike the first time around. Second of all, he was never the revenge type (remember when his daughter got killed?). So I'm going for that one.
However your theory sounds also good.

lol That's okay.
That is a point I have read many members give, which I'm relieved to hear. I myself was going to choose to spare the life of the kid, because he might indeed change his future by himself. Or, as swanne said it so well, a human's life is a book where each individual write its own chapter as he goes along. One can never know for certain that a human is 100% destined to something, and shouldn't be judged on what he might do, even if someone tells you he is.

I was just curious to see what was the population's answer to that dilemma. Which a majority answered that it doesn't exist. Which relieves me.

P.S.: Glad to meet another DW fan!

a reply to: [post=19847783]Yavanna[/post
Your second assumption is eronious as the Doctor is a timelord he can go back in time to prevent his daughters death so in his reality revenge is a moot point. The only thing the Doctor sufferes is the act of his daughters death at that point in time. This is a fault of the writers failing to take into account of the complexity of time travel. Or better still their saving because they can bring back anyone or anything that has existed just by going back in time to alter the fact.
If your right about the next episode I'll say your a script writer or you've got ESP. Woooooooooooo.

a reply to: crayzeed

Actually, there are extremely specific rules around going back in time and changing history amongst the Timelords. 95% of the time events are fixed events in the fabric of time, and not even Timelord can modify with those events. You forget that DW doesn't take into account the new time travel theory that any change in events or history result in a new universe/alternate timeline being created and running its course. They follow the old and still probable theory that any change in events could result in catastrophic results (remember "Father's Day" and "Turn Left", where any change in events messed-up the fabric of time and messed up the future). The Doctor intervene a little bit more in such events, but even then, the only time he'll change history is if it saves millions of people, not just one. Risking the integrity of the fabric of time (remember Army Of Ghosts, where he explains how any door between two universe, or even fixed events in history that are suddenly changed, creates holes and weak points in the fabric of space-time, with the inevitable result of the fabric opening completely) for only one person is selfish, so the Doctor refrains himself from doing it, even if its a daughter, companion, or family of that companion. The only time he finds it justifiable to risk ripping the fabric of the universe is if it save a civilization, etc.
Beside, bringing back everyone that dies just because one could... As Sarah Jane said (and I agree with her), death and loss defines life as much as joy; everything has its time and everything must die. And how one reacts to such an event define that person.

Nah, I'm neither. I am just deducing; and mainly, hoping that they keep the Doctor as he should be and always have been: compassionate and giver of second chance, even to his worst enemies.

originally posted by: Yavanna
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?

I see no 'dilemma'.
You act as if there is some 'choice' involved.
There is not.
If one is a murderer, at that moment, that is what he will do.
We act in accord with our nature.
A healthy, Loving person would never do such a thing!
The Loving eye does NOT judge others!
Even if the 'future' is Known, and it is, there is not anything that you can do to alter a single moment of it!

a reply to: [post=19878045]namelesss[/post
I could agree but there are some special circumstances. A friend of mine who I worked with for over 12 years was devoted to his wife and her to him. Two years ago she got a very dibilitating condition and when it came down to it he couldn't see her suffering any longer and killed her with a knife with her agreement as shed signed a statement absolving him of the deed.
They truely love and adored one another yet he did what he did.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: [post=19878045]namelesss[/post
I could agree but there are some special circumstances. A friend of mine who I worked with for over 12 years was devoted to his wife... yet he did what he did.

There is a huge difference between murdering a baby Hitler, and a requested act of mercy!

a reply to: Yavanna

Murder is a mental act of self hate. You are Hitler and all he killed, the killer and the killed. It's all a reflection of your own mental state.

Since this is not about time travel but about knowing, perhaps through genetics that this boy will rise to power, since he is heir to the throne of Someplace, and that he will one day kill millions of people (we know this through exact genetic testing) then instead of killing him we should wire him up with 24hr survalence and a kill switch.
Then if he tries anything his handlers can flip a switch.