Valkyrie

[Resurrexi]

[dominicansoul]

...well, if hitler ran an abortion clinic...

then no...

but seeing that killing him might have ended the war and saved lives, then yes...

[TeresaBenedicta]

One of my friends actually wrote her term paper in our Just War Theory class on this topic.

[Resurrexi]

What was her conclusion?

[kafka]

not familiar with the movie, but the three fonts of morality would have to be applied to the act:

1. intention: the intended end or purpose

2. the act itself: the act itself, within its inherent moral meaning. This inherent moral meaning is determined by the moral object of the act.

3. circumstance (or consquences) good consequences must outweigh the bad.

if one of the three is bad the overall act is immoral.

The intention would have been good, namely kill Hitler as an aid in ending his dictatorship, ending the war, saving lives, and countries and resources.

Killing one is not intrinsically evil, so the act defaults to the third font. It would not be murder, since it would be an act of war and Hitler's life would be forfeit for his serious crimes.

The good consequences would have to outweigh the bad. This is where research would have to come in. Without doing the research I infer that yes the good consequences would have outweighed the bad, since I am guessing a considerable amount of confusion and upheavel would have ensued in the Nazi Party, military, etc.



This is just initial though, I dont know all the details surrounding the actual historical event.

[kafka]

I just thought too some other problems affecting the morality of the plot would be lying. I'm not sure if they had to lie or decieve in order to accomplish the plot, perhaps they could have resorted to mental reservation with a good intent and good consequences.

it is a pretty complex moral act. I would need all the circumstances and some time to study it.

Edited June 2, 2009 by kafka

[jeffpugh]

Well, would it be murder? He was not quite an innocent man...

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1880656' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:42 PM']Well, would it be murder? He was not quite an innocent man...[/quote]

But was Dr. T. innocent either?

Edited June 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Didymus]

It would be murder if German law defined it as murder...

But I do concur that it would have been definitely possible to do it in a morally acceptable way. What really happen I don't for sure know. Col. Stauffenberg is a hero though..

Edited June 2, 2009 by Didymus

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' post='1880654' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:41 PM']I just thought too some other problems affecting the morality of the plot would be lying. I'm not sure if they had to lie or decieve in order to accomplish the plot, perhaps they could have resorted to mental reservation with a good intent and good consequences.

it is a pretty complex moral act. I would need all the circumstances and some time to study it.[/quote]
I'm thinking out loud at this point (I like moral case studies). The acts leading up to the actual killing of hitler would be seperate moral acts. So they would need to be judged seperately.

It would be an interesting study to say the least.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1880663' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:49 PM']It would be murder if German law defined it as murder...

But I do concur that it would have been definitely possible to do it in a morally acceptable way. What really happen I don't for sure know. Col. Stauffenberg is a hero though..[/quote]

Murder in civil law and murder in moral theology aren't always the same.

[kafka]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1880656' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:42 PM']Well, would it be murder? He was not quite an innocent man...[/quote]
no. I think it would be defined as killing as an act of civil war, which is not intrinsically evil.

[quote name='Didymus' post='1880663' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:49 PM']It would be murder if German law defined it as murder...[/quote]
no, I disagree, eternal moral law is above and beyond civil law. I think it would be just killing, not unjust killing otherwise known as murder.

Edited June 2, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1880662' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:47 PM']But was Dr. T. innocent either?[/quote]
I'm curious what you mean here?

previous innoncence or guilt doesnt affect the morality of a whole new act.

A man might be guilty of a previous crime, but that doesnt affect him from performing a whole new moral act.

If one had to lie and decieve in order to get him to the position of actually killing Hitler, then he should have refrained from putting himself in such a position in the first place, since means do not justify ends.

So if they intended to kill Hitler, but within that intention also intended to lie and decieve in order to put them in a position to kill him, then the first font of the act would be bad, thus making the overall act of assasination immoral.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1880687' date='Jun 1 2009, 10:07 PM']I'm curious what you mean here?[/quote]

It was a response to SSM's statement that "Hitler wasn't exactly innocent".

I was questioning his logic.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[dairygirl4u2c]

of course it was morally justified.
just like it's morally justified that dr. tiller was assassinated.

the only reason people vote and/or think differently, is cause they follow social convention. even to the point that it makes no sense.
im sure folks had similar arguments, for why hitler shouldn't have been assassinated, too, as do those against tiller's death.
hitler = bad and you can kill him, just like osama, even though you're breaking the law. tiller = not killable, cause that means you're breaking the law (but moreso, it involves rocking the boat, fessing up to cowardice, taking an unpopular stand etc). sometimes, laws are to be broken-- these 'dont break the law' ideas are sorely misplaced. if not now, then when? does it have to be a stereotypical genocide or country or terrorist invading us? do we have to have that much artifiality in our premises?

ya ever get deep into pokin holes in social norms, and notice how contradictory society and people are, even to any objective thinking person?
i know in this case most wouldn't agree with me, but that's what i see transpiring here too, but for situations much more serious than petty 'customs' and stuff.

Edited June 2, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Resurrexi]

DairyGirl, you might want to watch what you say, you don't want to get put on one of O.'s prospective terrorist lists

[sarcasmguy126]

think about it this way...if they hadn't tried it, more American lives would have been lost because the war would have continued, with Hitler still killing them.

So, I would say, yes, it was morally acceptable.

And yes, it is very complex.

[rkwright]

Kafka are you saying that if one new that their plot would involve some sort of deception, then because of the ends don't justify the means the plot would be immoral?

If the guard stopped you on the way in and asked if you were carrying a bomb (it was a failed bombing attempt to kill Hitler) and you lied the whole act would now be considered immoral? Honestly that doesn't seem quiet right...

I don't know how familiar you are with the actual attempt, but it was carried out by German officers. Not necessarily "the enemy". Still moral? Its one thing if you're at war with someone and they're a legitimate target as Hitler was. But what if your just a teamkiller?

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1881558' date='Jun 2 2009, 09:42 PM']Kafka are you saying that if one new that their plot would involve some sort of deception, then because of the ends don't justify the means the plot would be immoral?

If the guard stopped you on the way in and asked if you were carrying a bomb (it was a failed bombing attempt to kill Hitler) and you lied the whole act would now be considered immoral? Honestly that doesn't seem quiet right...

I don't know how familiar you are with the actual attempt, but it was carried out by German officers. Not necessarily "the enemy". Still moral? Its one thing if you're at war with someone and they're a legitimate target as Hitler was. But what if your just a teamkiller?[/quote]
No I slipped up in my explanation. I was thinking out loud and erred a bit. The act of putting oneself in a position to kill Hitler would be immoral if it involved lying and deception. I guess I was trying to make the point that even though killing Hitler would be moral in that historical circumstance since

A) He took the government entirley away from what is good and just and reasonable, making the government unjust and in effect betraying the people, the citizens would have a right to rise up and kill him. They no longer had recourse to the government justice system to arrest and convict him. And since government is for the common good, the people can sometimes act for the common good, when government is usurped by a dictator, without formal authority.

&

B) He went to war against other nations unjustly, and was a dictator who was threatening any innocent lives in his own and in other nations, then the leaders of other nations would be justified in attempting to kill him.

even though it was valid and moral to kill Hitler, seperate acts leading up to the actual act of killing him such as lying, would not be moral.

If the plotting German officers were acting with good intention for the common good of the country they would have been justified in plotting against Hitler, though its clear some were in it only for political gain and their true intentions were made manifest after the failed attempt since I think a few of them committed suicide, or immediately changed sides back to the Nazi party.

Edited June 3, 2009 by kafka

[Groo the Wanderer]

In a time of war, the leader of a country's armed forces is a legitimate target. Therefore Hitler was a legitimate target, regardless of who targeted him.