Inspired by another question: Would it have been ethically and morally justifiable to assassinate Hitler before his appointment as Chancellor and his rise to power?

Nope. What you do is talk to him and inject influence, doubt and other subtle forms of mitigation. You also can empower others to become competition like you would use baking soda to neutralize acid.

Probably not, the bloke was a crackpot but without the benefit of hindsight…who knew?
Besides, The Boys from Brazil tells us it would’ve been futile-ish.

This is relevant.

Alas, no.

Not saying I don’t root for that guy in every time-travel story ever, but prosecuting a crime before it’s been committed is never ethical.

(@CWOTUS – you broke the page)

No italics in parenthetical tagged comments. Must remember that now.

Dayum. Even broke it in separate instances, too.

If we knew then what we know now the answer would have to be yes.

Nope, murder is unethical in all circumstances. It would have been better to use a tranquiler sedative to knock him out, then lock him in a cell. There must be an upholding of a standard of what is acceptable behaviour for humans. Which is why I oppose the death penalty.

Hitler was a demon and a mad man, but the public LOVED him at that time( sorta like Trump)
He brought Germany out of the depression, (sorta like what Trump is promising)
Hitler turned his own people on the people he didn’t like,the jews,(sorta what Trump is doing to protesters)
Hitler= evil mad man
Trump= You really want to see???

No. But I would talk to his art school dean and ask for him to be given a full scolarship and to be encouraging to him.

No.

Why do people insist on getting rid of Hitler before he caused any damage? I propose we go back and adopt him as a young child or even baby and raise him to be a responsible citizen.

I agree that no, it wouldn’t be ethical to assassinate him before he did anything. After massive, horrendous genocide, especially since he showed no signs of stopping… absolutely.

At least according to the narrative I got from school and media, part of Hitler’s rise was his leveraging of specific sociopolitical circumstances, amplifying them to his advantage (particularly preexisting prejudices and economic hardship)... Wasn’t part of the problem that other countries weren’t taking his rhetoric or the rumors seriously, and/or (with WWI still etched in their minds) other countries weren’t interested in getting involved in another country’s affairs?

While it wouldn’t have been ethical to assassinate Hitler before he had done anything, from what I understand, no one was going to assassinate him at that point anyway—no one was paying enough attention. If they had been, there perhaps were other measures they could have taken to prevent (or at least lessen) the suffering he caused and the lives he took. And if he still became “Hitler”—then assassination would be justifiable. (Also, I think it would be justifiable much sooner than when it was attempted. He was pretty awful for many years.)

Side note: I’m against DP too, generally, but I think their are situations where execution is the best option. Hitler was brutal and remorseless with a disturbing amount of power, and on top of that, he intended to keep going. I think he’s a situation where execution is almost inarguably the best option, especially when it’s in the context of war.