It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would you do if you 'knew'?

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Interesting thoughts, I will have to spend some time thinking on...

There is another possibility to consider... The person who has this gift is not religious, or of strong faith... You said in your previous post that this man may actually be setting out to fulfill his ordained/divine purpose in life, that it may be God's plan as well.... And what if the "gift" given in foresight with the option to stop him is a trick, an evil source set out to halt God's rapture?

What if the source of this "gift" is not spiritual at all, and is used and controlled by some other unknown source, with good intentions to help humanity avoid a catastrophe?

The what if's can go on and on here... in the end, who is right or wrong, divine, or evil, or just completely insane?... There really are only two ways to find out for sure here, one way or the other, we could learn quite a bit from this, depending how it ultimately plays out.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cry93
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


I only saw that OP accounted for his/her mental health. The other issues? Please point them out to me. Maybe I missed them.

It isn't the input at all. I'm just pointing out that there are many things we have to account for in having this conversation. A BSC individual asking this question versus having this discussion with a rational, mature person would required different approaches.

For instance, I would be greatly concerned if I had a dream that prompted me to murder another individual and my mental health is just fine. I would also tread lightly in having this broad discussion with another individual when I don't know their background and ability to process information in a realistic manner.


You are getting way too wrapped up in the hypothetical situation itself, instead of not taking it so literally and realizing it's prompt to discuss a moral/ethical dilemma (though I suspect you are already aware of this and are just being nitpicky).

When someone asks "Why did the chicken cross the road?" do you respond with "Well I question why the chicken was even out of the coop. Was it a wild chicken? Did it escape?" Those kind of questions are really missing the point of the entire excercise.

Granted, the original situation could have been greatly simplified and not left so many variables unaccounted for, but the point is entirely clear.
edit on 18-9-2011 by Akasirus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


As much as I respect the creator of this world, and knowing that it is blasphemous, my loyalties lie with my fellow man first. Especially my own family. If there is a God worth worshipping, then that God will understand. If that God does not understand, then we are at opposition, and I will use my skills to thwart his efforts to harm my loved ones. Think of the Titans in lore. The Gods were not benevolent and the Titans opposed them successfully.

If I felt strongly that my visions were correct, then I would not have any second thoughts about whether or not stopping the person's plan was a good thing. If God's plan was to have me fail, and that person win, and God underestimated me and I prevailed, I would still feel comfortable in having done my best, the rest would be up to God to correct.

For a person that does not believe in God, the choices are even clearer. Through whatever trick of nature and biology, they have received a vision of a bad future, and also have a chance to prevent it. There is no spiritual side to consider, and no decision about what is good and what is evil, they only have to worry about preventing the deaths of millions of people, perhaps many of their loved ones. The selfish aspect is a little more pronounced, because without a hope of afterlife, they are making an even larger sacrifice in giving up this life, but seeing as how no one lives forever, I believe the choice is still a fairly easy one. I would still sacrifice myself for my loved ones without a doubt. Die now with the purpose of protecting those I love, or live an anguished life and die later for no purpose. I'd chose now.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
No.

a] Hitler wasn't primarily who was responsible for what happened. He had a group of other people behind him, who were telling him what to do. You generally don't hear about them, even now.

b] Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf about all of the different negative elements of human nature that he was able to manipulate. In other words, if the rest of us weren't so flawed, he wouldn't have been able to get anywhere, and he knew that.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
if it's all foreknowledge as a result of you seeing 2 potential outcomes, then clearly there are other potential outcomes in which the event does not occur. this scenario does not smack of the truth in any way, shape or form. there are always alternatives



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Since this is all theoretical, maybe the person has already made a choice, maybe YOU all who have participated here have made that choice collectively, perhaps inadvertently....

I'd like to think that ending this discussion on page 13 would NOT be an option, but maybe it is...

Stay tuned.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 




If you had advance absolute knowledge before Hitler rose to power, would you have killed him?


Knowing what awaited humanity and the planet? Would I have killed this guy... given the chance even if it meant my own death?

Yes. Without question.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   


the answer is, there are more than 2 positions BEFORE the event does or does not occur. since you're in the position yourself, to direct the events due to your foreknowledge, there's no position in which only 2 positions of the event (or lack thereof) are available for you to choose from. your premise is faulty.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
You always have to ask yourself, did Hitler create a common enemy? SO many countries who had shaky standings with each other allied together to take him down. Hitler could've been the meanest most brutal guy ever in history, but if he united many and prevented much more pain and suffering, maybe he was necessary?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


ok I'll play.


based on your post... the phenomena could be proven with testing...correct?

if the person was absolutely 100% sure, that their visions/experiences were precognitive in nature, and could be used to change catatrosphic future events .... perhaps one would maim or disable the perpetrator... i would do it, if the perpetrator was extra-terrestial and not of this earth. I most certainly would!

unfortunately another issue comes to mind under that scenario.

I believe there are no accidents. the events that play out in this earth, as evil as it may seem...I believe serve a purpose. I try to imagine a world that is all good. no evil. And I see nobody growing, learning, or changing because they are all good natured beings. Once you throw some evil actions & evil intent into the mix...well now we got some HUMAN ACTION based on change, growth, and learning.

so from that perspective I wouldn't kill the perpetrator. I would let events fall as they may. There is a reason why humanity would reach that point. There would be a purpose. You may not see it now...but it would most definately be there. And no ONE person can decide the future fate of us all.
edit on 18-9-2011 by infowarrior9970 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 



What if the whole thing is simply a test of a person's faith?

What if the completely wrong person was chosen for this particular "gift"?


A little off your original topic, but people's faith's are often tested in the worst possible way. Do not ever make the mistake of praying of patience, because you will be forced to learn patience!! And that could be miserable!

God and I talk a lot, and I readily admit to having a soft spot for the ladies, and I pray to NOT be tested. I will fail, and I don't want to hurt my wife. I avoid those situations that are tempting, and although I flirt quite a bit, as soon as I get a nibble, I bail out quick before anyone gets carried away!

Yes, the "wrong" person is often chosen for a particular task, and I do not have an explanation for that. Entertainment for God? Test of Faith? Mechanism to force growth in the individual? Or a master plan in futility of the human race?

I don't know, but most importantly, we have to strive to do more, and be honest with ourselves, and be careful what we pray for!! Remember Solomon chose "Wisdom."



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Se7enex
 



but if he united many and prevented much more pain and suffering, maybe he was necessary?


"Necessary Evil" is one of my favorite subjects, and I have written a couple of short stories in that area.

You raise a wonderful point. Was Hitler evil, or was he just necessary to put the world on the right track?

I don't believe anybody believes they are evil. I'm sure that Hitler's intentions were entirely pure, and he felt he was doing the best thing he could do. I don't believe anyone sets out to do evil, they just believe their means justify their ends, and they believe they will be proven justified in the end, if they are successful, but then never quite reach that final tier.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   


"Necessary Evil"


This suggests "Evil" was the only intelligent choice. I disagree. Although I understand the concept of pressure changing things, fact of the matter is there are infinite other ways in which change can be seen other than thru suffering and devastation. If you have an atom with negative and positive charges and want that atom to be more negative to effect change, all you've done is create a different atom, which already existed to begin with. The prior atom no longer exists, so you've not changed the atom to be a better version of itself, only made it into something other than itself, which is not a logical route. It's like replacing one tyrant with another, different tyrant.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I would most definitely intervene. To have knowledge like that and to not intervene would be selfish.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Right and Wrong is all in the mind. Maybe he saw all of this division amongst people and thought unifying Europe was the best choice. In any case, I don't think he was evil and I don't think his intentions were evil. In my opinion nobody is right in war, especially when what is at stake is human life.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 



Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


Woah, there bug a boo, you are interpreting this to be a nonfictional event. I do not think the OP was asking for advice on an actual situation. This is a brain teaser or moral excersise only. (I sure hope so anyway).



I am aware that the OP presented this thread as an intellectual exercise, with very specific parameters. However, it was presented within the Philosophy/Metaphysics forum, so I believe my choice of response was reasonable. It is also my belief that the posting under this forum increases the odds that someone encountering the thread in the future may be actually struggling in their own lives with similarly-themed dilemmas, although almost certainly not in circumstances nearly as dramatic as the OP uses for effect here.

So I chose to respond to it as if it were a “real” request for advice, in part because that is the writing technique that was chosen by the OP. It was certainly not my intention to derail the thread from the OP’s intended direction - and I don’t believe it has. And in the end, I felt that I stayed with the “intellectual exercise” tact of the thread - I just approached the intellectual exercise without accepting the definition limitations of “absolute knowledge” as posed by the OP.

If my approach has been a distraction to anyone, that was not my intent. If it has been amusing, in light of the OP’s directions and the other replies, that’s a bonus.

Thank you for the reply - it gave me a wonderful opportunity to explain the choice I made.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Shoot one hostage, and the rest behave. How many lives were possibly saved by using overwhelming force up front? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thought to have saved lived compared to prolonged ground battles.

Take a classroom of trouble makers, give an ultimatum, and the next one that steps out of line gets kicked out of the class. The next one is perhaps your best student, but it is important to follow through on your threat, so that decent student gets kicked out, and the other 30 begin to behave appropriately.

Martyrdom.

I'll post a short story by the name of "Necessarily Evil" in the Short Story forum. It is perhaps my favorite story I have ever written.
edit on 18-9-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by undo
 


Shoot one hostage, and the rest behave. How many lives were possibly saved by using overwhelming force up front? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thought to have saved lived compared to prolonged ground battles.

Take a classroom of trouble makers, give an ultimatum, and the next one that steps out of line gets kicked out of the class. The next one is perhaps your best student, but it is important to follow through on your threat, so that decent student gets kicked out, and the other 30 begin to behave appropriately.

Martyrdom.

I'll post a short story by the name of "Necessary Evil" in the Short Story forum. It is perhaps my favorite story I have ever written.


That's the tack people tend to take but it isn't the only possible avenue to fixing the problem, just the easiest to wrap your head around, and perhaps the least time consuming. But nothing important should ever be done lightly or with no forethought, and since the op's scenario also provides him with not only foreknowledge but time to consider potentialities, i see no reason why he couldn't investigate all possibilities, including those in which the event never occurs at all.

Anything THAT important, with sufficient time to consider...no reason not to consider other outcomes, as they obviously exist in a super position until a choice is made.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future". Joda in The Empire Strikes Back.

The only choice is to not intervene but let future run its course. Star Trek had "Non Intervention Protocols" and broke them all the time. I think I might be worried that I was stopping Judgement Day in your scenario.

And would I go back and kill Hitler? That could not be. Because there are no reports in the newspapers back then of someone with my name assassinating him. So I know, that even if I could manage to travel back in time, I would ultimately be unsuccessful.

Do you read Stephen King by any chance? You do? Well let me shake your hand.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future". Joda in The Empire Strikes Back.

The only choice is to not intervene but let future run its course. Star Trek had "Non Intervention Protocols" and broke them all the time. I think I might be worried that I was stopping Judgement Day in your scenario.

And would I go back and kill Hitler? That could not be. Because there are no reports in the newspapers back then of someone with my name assassinating him. So I know, that even if I could manage to travel back in time, I would ultimately be unsuccessful.

Do you read Stephen King by any chance? You do? Well let me shake your hand.


time doesn't work like that. when you arrive in a place where you weren't before, whether in time or space or both, you create a new timeline of potentialities for yourself. the old one no longer exists.
edit on 18-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join