On the Morality of Torture

[Digital-Nitrate]

Rationality is not based on morals, and it is not subjective.

My position on this subject is based on rationality. What is yours based on? Democracy? Instinct? Emotion?

Perhaps that's the disconnect then, as you apparently think it's perfectly acceptable to separate morals from making a decision on torturing another human being, let alone any living thing, and thus justifying it by saying its based on a rational decision.

That said, if you just want to argue on semantics, then it can also be rational to murder someone, as long as it's not based on any moral decision... which I suspect is how many of the people on that list felt.

It's our moral compass that in most ways separate civilized human beings from most other living things.

 

[Joey D]

I found this interesting after reading it on CNN.

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. See results of the survey »

The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
advertisement

Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.

The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals

Source

I'm surprised that so many religious people support torturing others, especially Christian religions. I'm pretty sure that goes against the teachings in the Bible...oh wait, silly me the Bible contradicts itself. Anyways, I felt this was relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Danoff]

That said, if you just want to argue on semantics, then it can also be rational to murder someone, as long as it's not based on any moral decision...

Since human rights are based on rationality, and murder is an inherent violation of human rights, no it is not possible for murder to be rational.

If you think it is, you haven't thought it through.

Saying "I'm going to kill that guy because I will do better things with his money than he does" may seem like an immoral concept that is based on rational thinking - but it is not based on sufficient rational thinking. Much like "the earth must be flat because otherwise we'd fall off" seems like rational thinking until you apply a healthy dose of more rationality.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Since human rights are based on rationality, and murder is an inherent violation of human rights, no it is not possible for murder to be rational.

What human rights are you referring to? Rationally speaking of course.

One of the most commonly referred to is the one the UN drafted... which by the way they and the 140 or so countries that signed and ratified it, also agree that torture is a violation of human rights... which you say are based on rationality, thus you just disproved your own belief.


Not to mention the fact that the title of this thread, the one you made, clearly states "the morality of torture"... so clearly you recognize that morals plays a critical role in whether or not torture is acceptable behavior.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm surprised that so many religious people support torturing others, especially Christian religions.

You mean, people who claim membership in Christian denominations, right? As no where does what you posted quote the official stance of these denominations. It should also be noted that most denominations do not force you to think and vote just like they want you to. Granted the Catholic church does have you say an oath when you join the church, which is why I won't ever officially become a member of my wife's church. But I do see that Catholics had the lowest rate of support for torture too, at just about 20%.

Ignoring inflammatory comment

One of the most commonly referred to is the one the UN drafted...

Considering how the UN turns a blind eye toward a lot of human rights violations, I take most of what they say with a grain of salt. When they want to address Darfur and other regions then I will give any credence to their stance on issues.

Not to mention the fact that the title of this thread, the one you made, clearly states "the morality of torture"... so clearly you recognize that morals plays a critical role in whether or not torture is acceptable behavior.

I think you are missing that Danoff is explaining that torture (as well as murder and imprisonment) only has a moral basis when used on people who have already shown a disregard for the rights of others. He is in no way attempting to justify its use against innocent people.


I don't agree with what he is saying, but I do recognize that he is not promoting it as being acceptable for just any reason on any person, and has even stated that he doesn't necessarily see it being necessary to use in more than a select few cases.

 

[Joey D]

You mean, people who claim membership in Christian denominations, right? As no where does what you posted quote the official stance of these denominations. It should also be noted that most denominations do not force you to think and vote just like they want you to. Granted the Catholic church does have you say an oath when you join the church, which is why I won't ever officially become a member of my wife's church. But I do see that Catholics had the lowest rate of support for torture too, at just about 20%.

Ignoring inflammatory comment

I'm not saying that it's the official stance of the given religion, but more of the people that practice it. I find it concerning that obviously a large percentage of Christians out there feel it's morally OK to harm another individual when Jesus's teachings suggest otherwise. I mean for the love of pete, Jesus was tortured quite extensively if the Bible is to be believed. Shouldn't that right there make many Christian wary to support it?

And inflammatory comment? Because I said the Bible contradicts itself?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

But I do see that Catholics had the lowest rate of support for torture too, at just about 20%.

No one ever suspects the Spanish Inquisition!

I don't agree with what he is saying, but I do recognize that he is not promoting it as being acceptable for just any reason on any person, and has even stated that he doesn't necessarily see it being necessary to use in more than a select few cases.

I recognize what he is saying, and like you, I don't agree with it, and have explained why.

And morality, as being discovered by neurological researchers, can be considered rational, as it stems from the way our brains are developed and function. Research done on the brains of various sociopaths and serial killers have already shown differences from the 'average' brain, which suggests that morality, while shaped and nurtured by nature, appears to also be largely influenced by our own individual DNA and brain development.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not saying that it's the official stance of the given religion, but more of the people that practice it. I find it concerning that obviously a large percentage of Christians out there feel it's morally OK to harm another individual when Jesus's teachings suggest otherwise. I mean for the love of pete, Jesus was tortured quite extensively if the Bible is to be believed. Shouldn't that right there make many Christian wary to support it?

I find it disturbing too, but not just because they are Christians. It is more disturbing that the religious right are so determined to walk in line with Bush policies that they will ignore what their religion teaches them to do. But then my Catholic wife voted for Obama and has had to not admit it because she heads up their religious education program for the public school kids.

And inflammatory comment? Because I said the Bible contradicts itself?

It seemed just thrown in as some kind of jab. If I misconstrued your meaning I apologize.

 

[YSSMAN]

Considering how the UN turns a blind eye toward a lot of human rights violations, I take most of what they say with a grain of salt. When they want to address Darfur and other regions then I will give any credence to their stance on issues.

As we say here at AQ, "International organizations are only as powerful as the strong states want to make them."

 

[Danoff]

What human rights are you referring to? Rationally speaking of course.

I created a few threads on the subject. Check this one:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=103958

One of the most commonly referred to is the one the UN drafted... which by the way they and the 140 or so countries that signed and ratified it, also agree that torture is a violation of human rights... which you say are based on rationality, thus you just disproved your own belief.

The UN definition of human rights is a joke. No, I am not referring to that.

 

[Omnis]

Found what I couldn't find before:

The Morality of Torture by Laurence Vance

 

[mindwise]

To use Dan Barkers definition of morality (my favorite for being so simple (the definition that is, not Dan)

As long as you genuinely strive to minimize the (total) amount of harm, you are acting morally correct.

Hence, under that definition, i can think of situations where torture is the morally correct thing to do (and where it is not )

 

[Danoff]

Found what I couldn't find before:

The Morality of Torture by Laurence Vance

Debunked with one simple phrase "The ends do not justify the means, the beginnings do." He focuses entirely on one side of that statement and ignores the other. His logical fallacy is to interpret the phrase "the ends do not justify the means" as "the means cannot be justified".

To use Dan Barkers definition of morality (my favorite for being so simple (the definition that is, not Dan)

As long as you genuinely strive to minimize the (total) amount of harm, you are acting morally correct.

Hence, under that definition, i can think of situations where torture is the morally correct thing to do (and where it is not )

Debunked by the statement above. Regardless of your goal, the ends do not justify the means. If killing all of the jews in Israel would save several times as many arab lives, harm may be minimized. But that would not make the action of nuking Israel any more moral.

 

[Omnis]

To use Dan Barkers definition of morality (my favorite for being so simple (the definition that is, not Dan)

As long as you genuinely strive to minimize the (total) amount of harm, you are acting morally correct.

Hence, under that definition, i can think of situations where torture is the morally correct thing to do (and where it is not )

It's impossible to minimize harm by creating harm.

Debunked with one simple phrase "The ends do not justify the means, the beginnings do." He focuses entirely on one side of that statement and ignores the other. His logical fallacy is to interpret the phrase "the ends do not justify the means" as "the means cannot be justified".

Wait, what are you talking about?

 

[niky]

In Danoff's view of morality, legitimate cause justifies any and all responses.

 

[Omnis]

In Danoff's view of morality, legitimate cause justifies any and all responses.

And such was addressed in the article, referring to "real" terrorists like Moussaoui.

 

[niky]

I'll wait on Danoff's response to that, because I don't completely agree with him anyway.

My objections to torture echo that of the article you posted. From a purely pragmatic point of view, torture isn't exactly the best course of action.

 

[mindwise]

Debunked by the statement above. Regardless of your goal, the ends do not justify the means. If killing all of the jews in Israel would save several times as many arab lives, harm may be minimized. But that would not make the action of nuking Israel any more moral.

Sure, you can have that opinion, but i still think it does if that would result in minimizing harm.
You need to realize that you are proposing to let many times more Arabs(people) be killed to save the Jews(people), surely your option is not the more moral one...

I am not saying it is an easy choice, but questions on morality seldom are, how is harm measured for instance. but...taking this 'ad absurdum'.
Would you allow one innocent person be killed, if that saves the lives of all of the people on the planet?, if so, which i hope you would, where is the threshold and why?

If 'the ends don't justify the means', then i claim that 'by defintion' you are not actually minimizing harm.

It's impossible to minimize harm by creating harm.

Sure it is, take an obvious one: killing Adolf Hitler in 1939 would have caused harm, yet it would have minimized harm.
There may have been even better ways, further minimizing harm, but then by my (Dan's) definiton, they would be preferred.

Rgds,

 

[Omnis]

Sure it is, take an obvious one: killing Adolf Hitler in 1939 would have caused harm, yet it would have minimized harm.
There may have been even better ways, further minimizing harm, but then by my (Dan's) definiton, they would be preferred.

Rgds,

That still doesn't make the action moral.

 

[mindwise]

That still doesn't make the action moral.

I think it is, you don't think that saving 6 million Jews (for starters) is morally correct?

Another one.

Lying is immoral, correct?

A woman knocks at your door, bruised and terrified of her abusing husband she asks you to take her in, which you do.
10 minutes later someone rings your bell, you open and it's her husband.
He asks you if you know where she is.

I would gladly lie to that man, and i'd even believe I'm handling morally correct because i'm aiming to minimize harm.
You may say that lying in itself is not a moral action, but i don't see how you can separate the lying from protecting the woman (and myself in this case)

 

[mafia_boy]

I thought this was very appropriate to what we're talking about here, it's a little video. Mancow decides to get waterboarded to find out what it's all about. This just gives you an insight as to what goes on.

It's not exactly as the CIA would do it, but it still illustrates the point.



Now, picture yourself in that spot.....can you seriously tell me you aren't being tortured??

I'm all for the phrase, "eye for an eye", but Bush & Cheney took it too far, especially since Japanese soldiers were charged by the US for torture way back after WW2. Guess what it was for......waterboarding US soldiers!! It's very hypocritical and illegal of the US to do it if you look at it from that standpoint.

 

[Danoff]

And such was addressed in the article, referring to "real" terrorists like Moussaoui.

I don't think he does. If you're referring to the first time he mentions Moussaoui being in US prisons, then he doesn't address the morality of torturing a man like Moussaoui except to say that the ends do not justify the means (which is painfully obvious).

Maybe he addresses it later and I didn't catch it.

Sure, you can have that opinion, but i still think it does if that would result in minimizing harm.
You need to realize that you are proposing to let many times more Arabs(people) be killed to save the Jews(people), surely your option is not the more moral one...

How is it moral to kill people who are rightfully defending themselves in favor of saving the lives of their would-be murderers?

If 3 people break into my house, should I shoot myself and my wife instead of my attackers simply because they outnumber us?

Would you allow one innocent person be killed, if that saves the lives of all of the people on the planet?

I don't understand the use of the term "allow" here. If you're asking me whether I would cause the death of on innocent person in order to prevent someone else from killing every human being, the answer is no.

If 'the ends don't justify the means', then i claim that 'by defintion' you are not actually minimizing harm.

Precisely.

Sure it is, take an obvious one: killing Adolf Hitler in 1939 would have caused harm, yet it would have minimized harm.

Of course, the ends desired (Hitler out of power) did not justify killing him. If it did, you could just as easily justify killing any national leader. That does not mean that his death was not justified. Anyone was justified in killing Hitler as a direct result of his own immoral actions. His rights were forfeit when he chose to violate the rights of others. The reason you can kill (or torture) someone like Hitler, is because noone can ask you to observe the rights of someone who has demonstrated that he will not observe rights himself. The ends did not justify the means, they were justified by the origins of that particular conflict.

 

[mindwise]

How is it moral to kill people who are rightfully defending themselves in favor of saving the lives of their would-be murderers?

Hi Danoff, i don't really appreciate you taking my words out of context, like by you filling in that 'several times the population of israel' are would be killers of that very population should they be Arabs, i don't recall the scenario you presented saying anything about the ones 'saved' being some kind of killing maniacs.
I said morality is usually a complex issue.
If you want my moral judgment on an issue, you need to fill me in with the complete picture, not tell me a part and fantasize the rest, not cool.

It seems you may be referring to the Israeli/Palestine issue, which is way to complex to interject into a discussion on morals
That said, the number of Palestinians i guess is too little to be applicable to your proposal, so that's probably not it.

So you may be suggesting millions of Arabs 'want the Israeli killed', i can only hope you have also been to Arab countries, working with Arabs, because i have on multiple occasions, and i distance myself from your suggestion. I admit that antisemitism exists, but though prevalent amongst a significant group of muslims, it's certainly not unique to that group.

Political Islam is worthy of discussion, but it's too complex to interject in this already complex discussion. (i recommend reading 'The Islamist' by Ed Husain as an interesting read 'from the inside')

In any case, if any of the above is what you meant, i had no way of knowing that by the scenario you described. So please don't leave out critical info like this if you present another scenario.

If 3 people break into my house, should I shoot myself and my wife instead of my attackers simply because they outnumber us?

again, morality is not a simple issue.
Attackers usually want money. So would not giving the attackers your money minimize harm a lot more?

And if they do want to kill you and your wife just for killing you, then to the best of my knowledge: you killing some or ALL (if you insist) your attackers will very likely minimize harm more then you killing your wife and yourself.
Because if they are still alive then, they will probably kill many more people.
You see, some people have a mental disorder, like lacking altruism.
There is a reason some people are locked in asylums. (perhaps minimize harm?)

Obviously, if millions of attackers want to kill you, the scenario you gave is missing vital information ;p

I don't understand the use of the term "allow" here. If you're asking me whether I would cause the death of on innocent person in order to prevent someone else from killing every human being, the answer is no.

.
Well, then the person you did not kill will at least have a lot of time alone to ponder if (s)he would have done the same. Incidentally,when (s)he dies, that's the end of human kind, so no one will ever know the outcome of is/her pondering.
(that is, i give you that the person in question does not get killed which i think was not even part of the original scenario, but that is what i meant so...)

(here's the scenario i gave, and for fun, run it again and you may assume you have to kill and the 'one person' will stay alive if you do not)

Would you allow one innocent person be killed, if that saves the lives of all of the people on the planet?

.
==

Of course, the ends desired (Hitler out of power) did not justify killing him..

Dude, it's really simple
if you have an option that would minimize harm (read: cause less harm then the option i gave) then your option would be the more moral option.
I say that if i can save 6 millions innocent lives by killing their potential killer, i hope i don't hesitate one second. And i'll take your judgment of me performing an immoral action by doing that for granted.

Strange enough you do say this:

The reason you can kill (or torture) someone like Hitler, is because noone can ask you to observe the rights of someone who has demonstrated that he will not observe rights himself.

You say it's because based on what we know, Hitler would not be observing certain rights himself (which renders you to non observance too btw)
I say it is because based on what we know, it would significantly minimize harm.....
Rgds,

 

[Danoff]

Hi Danoff, i don't really appreciate you taking my words out of context, like by you filling in that 'several times the population of israel' are would be killers of that very population should they be Arabs, i don't recall the scenario you presented saying anything about the ones 'saved' being some kind of killing maniacs.
I said morality is usually a complex issue.
If you want my moral judgment on an issue, you need to fill me in with the complete picture, not tell me a part and fantasize the rest, not cool.

It seems you may be referring to the Israeli/Palestine issue, which is way to complex to interject into a discussion on morals
That said, the number of Palestinians i guess is too little to be applicable to your proposal, so that's probably not it.

So you may be suggesting millions of Arabs 'want the Israeli killed', i can only hope you have also been to Arab countries, working with Arabs, because i have on multiple occasions, and i distance myself from your suggestion. I admit that antisemitism exists, but though prevalent amongst a significant group of muslims, it's certainly not unique to that group.

Political Islam is worthy of discussion, but it's too complex to interject in this already complex discussion. (i recommend reading 'The Islamist' by Ed Husain as an interesting read 'from the inside')

In any case, if any of the above is what you meant, i had no way of knowing that by the scenario you described. So please don't leave out critical info like this if you present another scenario.

Ok, it wasn't intended to be taken so seriously. It was intended to get you to think about the morality of an action rather than simply trying to minimize harm. If allowing someone to kill an innocent person somehow minimized harm overall, it doesn't change the morality of that single act.

again, morality is not a simple issue.
Attackers usually want money. So would not giving the attackers your money minimize harm a lot more?

How much money is sufficient before I can kill them? Infinite? What if it were something more precious than money - like freedom.

And if they do want to kill you and your wife just for killing you, then to the best of my knowledge: you killing some or ALL (if you insist) your attackers will very likely minimize harm more then you killing your wife and yourself.
Because if they are still alive then, they will probably kill many more people.

What if I know that they just want to kill me, and no one else. What if I accidentally ran over their kid with my car (and was penalized sharply by the legal system, but obviously not executed) and the father, mother, and brother were all breaking into my house to kill me to avenge the death of their kid/brother. Must I shoot myself then? Since I am 1 and they are 3.

You see, some people have a mental disorder, like lacking altruism.

That's not a mental disorder

Well, then the person you did not kill will at least have a lot of time alone to ponder if (s)he would have done the same. Incidentally,when (s)he dies, that's the end of human kind, so no one will ever know the outcome of is/her pondering.
(that is, i give you that the person in question does not get killed which i think was not even part of the original scenario, but that is what i meant so...)

It doesn't matter to me whether that person lives or dies by someone else's hand. It isn't moral for ME to take their life - regardless the outcome (ie: ends/means).

(here's the scenario i gave, and for fun, run it again and you may assume you have to kill and the 'one person' will stay alive if you do not)

Same answer.

Dude, it's really simple
if you have an option that would minimize harm (read: cause less harm then the option i gave) then your option would be the more moral option.
I say that if i can save 6 millions innocent lives by killing their potential killer, i hope i don't hesitate one second. And i'll take your judgment of me performing an immoral action by doing that for granted.

You're phrasing this in such a way as to have your cake and eat it to. You propose a system of morality in which the ends justify the means. Then you present a scenario in which the beginnings justify the means and claim that it proves that the ends do.

You say it's because based on what we know, Hitler would not be observing certain rights himself (which renders you to non observance too btw)

It doesn't render me anything. If he does not observe human rights, his rights are forfeit. I can kill him if I choose - because he no longer has a right to life. That's not a violation of rights.

 

[mindwise]

it doesn't change the morality of that single act.

I don't see how you can single out an action, circumstances are of vital importance in moral questions.
If so, you did not need to mention anything about 'many times more arabs', you should have just left it at; "is killing all the Israeli's a moral action".
Which is easily answered by asking:
"are you [based on what we know], minimizing harm?"

How much money is sufficient before I can kill them? Infinite? What if it were something more precious than money - like freedom.

Good question, which i cannot answer easily.

What if I know that they just want to kill me, and no one else. What if I accidentally ran over their kid with my car (and was penalized sharply by the legal system, but obviously not executed) and the father, mother, and brother were all breaking into my house to kill me to avenge the death of their kid/brother. Must I shoot myself then? Since I am 1 and they are 3.

How would you getting killed as well as the kid, minimize harm?
Again morality issues are complex, and the scenario you give here is really complicated. i could say 'flee', but i guess you'll just restrict the scenario further
i have no clear answer to this, let's establish the attackers are not minimizing harm, hence they are acting immoral.
Should you shoot them or yourself? i'd say aim for the feet

Can a convict on the run from a death penalty shoot down officers who aim to shoot him down?
Perhaps i should have stressed that 'a simple definition' does not mean the application is simple in every case.
If the convict was framed...

[lacking altruism] That's not a mental disorder

What do you claim it is?

It doesn't matter to me whether that person lives or dies by someone else's hand. It isn't moral for ME to take their life - regardless the outcome (ie: ends/means)......Same answer.

Alright, i understand you judge isolated actions, where i judge as much circumstances as possible.
I am glad in courts of law circumstances are important.

You're phrasing this in such a way as to have your cake and eat it to. You propose a system of morality in which the ends justify the means. Then you present a scenario in which the beginnings justify the means and claim that it proves that the ends do.

i'll need to try and understand what you mean here, so i'll get back to you on this one. I am aiming for a total picture and not judge actions isolated, because actions rarely are.
You need to understand English is not my native language (like you didn't notice )
Perhaps you made a post explaining 'end justify' and 'beginnings justify'.
(as you did in the startpost, but that does not really clarify it me, i not so happy with how you put things it when you say:

Rights exist in part because they are reciprocal. In order to ask me to observe your rights, you must observe mine. The instant you violate my rights, you forfeit some of your own.

what i consider a more workable proposition is:
My rights end where the rights of others begin and vice-versa. (and when someone violates my rights, all circumstances need to be taken into account)

Now, this may sound like the same thing, but i think it better covers an overlap in rights.
If i steal from someone else, you mean i can no longer claim rights to my property (in lack of better words).
How broad do you mean that, from society as a whole, or just by the person i stole from, i suppose the latter, and i guess in proportion.
Though i for a large part agree with the reasoning, i'm not (yet!) sure it can actually work that way.

If he does not observe human rights, his rights are forfeit. I can kill him if I choose - because he no longer has a right to life. That's not a violation of rights.

If someone kills someone else he automatically forfeits his right to live?
Regardless of circumstances?
And who is to kill him then?, not the one he killed, that's for sure, some kind of wild west outlaw or something?

Can i use free speech to speak out against free speech, or do i loose my right to free speech when i do that?
Of course i consider it highly hypocritical if someone does this, but i am not yet convinced that person's right for free speech can be taken away.
I am not sure, i used to be sure
But now i think that speaking out against free speech is not sufficient to deny him free speech.

I see certainly see merit in some kind of 'forfeiture of rights when violating them' (beginnings right?)
But i don't see how 'ends justify the means' can be discarded.

If the ends don't justify the means, the 'beginnings' are not sufficient.
But perhaps i am confusing 'beginnings' and 'ends' again

 

[Omnis]

You guys assume too much. You don't know that killing Hitler would have saved 6 million Jews.

 

[mindwise]

You guys assume too much. You don't know that killing Hitler would have saved 6 million Jews.

Well, that was my assumption, so i need to plead guilty on both accounts

But as a scenario, then i would be asking you to assume it, that's what i wanted to say.
so i'm assuming on a bit, sorry, hehehe

I still don't agree to the 'beginnings' without taking circumstances into account.
I certainly see your point Danoff, if someone is out to kill me, then i do not object killing him (well, assuming i have a gun and no other choice).
There is no significant difference in suffering if we can count suffering as a human life for a second, so perhaps my definition fails short of a good answer there.
But i do object to someone being free game if he killed someone without looking at circumstances, i cannot see it that black and white.

I just cannot convince myself yet "that a guy who steels forfeits his 'rights' not to be stolen from"
Without taking into account he stole to feed a starving family (ends).
Sure, it depends who he stole from (like a guy trying to feed his starving family), but actions imho cannot be separated from "the big picture".

Perhaps I'm just a weakling

 

[FoolKiller]

In regards to the Hitler question I think everyone forgets one thing, on top of what Omnis already pointed out.

If you kill Hitler before his actions lead to the holocaust you are punishing him for something he has not done. That alone steps on very shaky moral ground, even if you know that you can alter events. But then, as Omnis points out, you still can't be sure that you do alter events.

Punishing someone in advance of punishable actions is immoral simply for the fact that they haven't done anything. These what-if scenarios, like Hitler, require either time travel or psychic vision. They are not realistic.

I understand we are trying to create moral dilemmas with these what ifs for the sake of debate, but these aren't even physically plausible what-ifs. We are stepping outside the bounds of reality to get a realistic answer.

But if you want my answer to your moral dilemma: Killing Hitler before World War II, because of the holocaust, is killing an innocent man.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

If you kill Hitler before his actions lead to the holocaust you are punishing him for something he has not done. That alone steps on very shaky moral ground, even if you know that you can alter events. But then, as Omnis points out, you still can't be sure that you do alter events.

Punishing someone in advance of punishable actions is immoral simply for the fact that they haven't done anything. These what-if scenarios, like Hitler, require either time travel or psychic vision. They are not realistic.

That would make for an interesting story line for a Sci-Fi film...

 

[Danoff]

But if you want my answer to your moral dilemma: Killing Hitler before World War II, because of the holocaust, is killing an innocent man.

Agreed. 👍