Sherlock buys a clue

[vaskidmark]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/44335/20150406/men-more-likely-than-women-to-go-back-in-time-and-kill-hitler-moral-judgments-study.htm

Here's a question; if you could go back in time and kill Hitler - likely saving millions of lives - would you do it? Your answer, researchers were surprised to find, might depend on your gender.

Guess who else was not surprised?

Then it goes all rodeo -

The study considered two contrasting philosophical/ethical principles; utilitarianism, which says committing a harmful action is acceptable if it is for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontology, which holds that breaking moral conventions as held by most people, even to secure a favorable future result, is wrong.

Women were more likely to fall into the deontology camp and agonize for a long time over a decision, while men were somewhat more likely to lean toward utilitarianism and make a quick decision, the researchers found.

I will be under my rock while the rest of you discuss this.

stay safe.

[MillCreek]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Or the one.

-Commander Spock

who I suspect would have pulled the trigger on Adolf in an instant and then enjoyed a hearty bowl of plomeek soup.

[Hawkmoon]

Here's a question; if you could go back in time and kill Hitler - likely saving millions of lives - would you do it? Your answer, researchers were surprised to find, might depend on your gender.

Guess who else was not surprised?

Unpossible.

The genders are equal. The premise is false.

[zxcvbob]

It's still an oversimplification. 

One can have a clear Deontological sense of right and wrong, and then decisively and without hesitation choose to commit an evil act (eg. murder Hitler) for the greater good.  IMHO, the difference between the Deontologist and the Utilitarianist (or Consequentialist) is that the former accepts responsibility for his actions rather than try to excuse them.

(why has my inner voice started singing "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant..."?)

[MechAg94]

The question also makes the assumption that if Hitler was killed then there would be no one else to do essentially the same thing.  Japan would still have been looking to dominate their area and war with Japan in some capacity would have probably happened eventually if not still in 1941. 

[RoadKingLarry]

I wouldn't really consider killing Hitler and evil act.
Some folks just need killin'

[TommyGunn]

The question also makes the assumption that if Hitler was killed then there would be no one else to do essentially the same thing.  Japan would still have been looking to dominate their area and war with Japan in some capacity would have probably happened eventually if not still in 1941. 

Probably not exactly the samething.
What would have resulted had the person who replaced Hitler actually been competent?
Or, say, a strategic genius?

[MechAg94]

I know it was just a game, but wasn't that the whole story behind the Red Alert: Command and Conquer games?  Someone invented time travel and killed Hitler.  The world war still happened, but later with better weapons or something like that.

[Jocassee]

I know it was just a game, but wasn't that the whole story behind the Red Alert: Command and Conquer games?  Someone invented time travel and killed Hitler.  The world war still happened, but later with better weapons or something like that.

Thus taking one of the greatest franchises of all time into its Golden Era.

Red Alert player since 1996...