Hm...

[missroserose]

Moral question, inspired by my dreams last night:

If one had the ability to literally turn back time for the world, and erase all events that happened after a certain point in time, would it still be wrong for this person to torture, hurt or even kill other people at random, so long as they undid the actions and allowed the timeline to continue on as normal? This is, of course, assuming that the people inhabiting said timeline retained no "future memories" of the erstwhile future...

Let the discussion of moral rightness (or perhaps just the awesome evil possibilities available to someone with this power) commence. =)

Comments

[darknightmare.livejournal.com]

Such a lovely paradox.

As horrid as our history is, I wouldn't.

Sure you could save millions, but what if one of those millions goes on to kill a distant relative and your never born?

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Okay, sorry, let me clarify a bit -

This power would be limited to a certain period of time - say three days. For three days you could literally wreak whatever havoc you wanted, and you could then turn time back and none of it would have happened.

Would this mean that it would no longer be wrong for you to wreak said havoc, if, in effect, it would never happen?

[darknightmare.livejournal.com]

Ok, even if things were to be normal after all is said and done, I still wouldn't.

Look at it from this point of view.

This coming from my Father who served in Vietnam and a close friend who served in the Marines.

They both took lives in defense of thier country. The scar of killing is something that will never leave them. Ever. So much so they both have nightmares because of what did happen.

So getting back to it, yeah you could create havoc and all that type of lovely fun, but you, yourself would be changed.

Now if yourself didn't remember, that still is a fine line with your subconcious and maybe even Deyja vu(sp?).

[hereticorp.livejournal.com]

This depends on if you consider morality as strictly personal or a communal thing.

I don't think morality can be communal any more the belief can be communal. No two people will ever have the exact same beliefs and no two people will ever have the exact same morality.

So this person is debating if he wants to let his dark side out and go on a rampage without any concequences other then the memories he will hold of it... The downside to this one would be, what if he gets addicted? Of course, spending your entire life going on murderous rampages and then going back and erasing your actions wouldn't be a bad existance if you had the control to stop and go back to fix things every time. I think I'd get bored after a while though. And of course I'd need some sort of force shield thingy so that I couldn't be killed going off and beating on all these people I'd love to beat on.

I think the real difference between me and someone of the average population who would be reading this is that I don't consider human life any kind of sacred or special. So going off on a wild killing spree isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's the concequences of said action that are the things that need to be worried about.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Yay! Firefly's rubbing off on you too!

Seriously, you've got a point on communal vs. personal. While I don't consider human life to be any more special than, say, an animal's, I do have some respect for it, just the same way I try to respect an animal's life - it's the whole Golden Rule thing, which is sort of necessary to live in a community. But if you can literally undo your actions to the point where they never existed in the first place, what does it matter?

[hereticorp.livejournal.com]

Exactly, all you have is your memory of the actions, and if you don't think it was a horrible thing, it's not going to bother you at all.

Oh yes, Firefly is definately rubbing off on me. I'm sort of hoping that the movie goes through and spawns a second season.

I just got through the History of the Crew episode, was interesting to see where he picked everyone up. And that Kaylee isn't nearly as innocent as she seems.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the interesting thing - Kaylee's innocence seems to be less of a sexual innocence than just innocence of life in general - she has faith in the goodness of humanity that comes from not witnessing much of said humanity, which makes an interesting counterpoint to Book's faith in same, when it's implied that he's seen a lot more shit than she has.

One of the interesting things later on is watching that change somewhat in later episodes...

[hereticorp.livejournal.com]

Well, i'm gonna go take a crack at the third disc now.

Any ETA on my return e-mail? ;)

Well...

[eventhewaves.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting moral quandary, that's for sure.

When you erased everything and put the world to rights, would you still remember what you've done? If so, I'd say it's very, very wrong -- you've upset a major balance, and created some twisted splinter-verse in which a number of people who should otherwise be alive are dead as Delia. (Vague Johnny Cash reference.)

If not, it gets much trickier. I'd still say it's wrong -- you've mutilated and killed, which ain't cool. There's blood on your spirit, if not on your hands, so the natural balance is going to be exacting a harsh price whether you remember or not.

On the other hand, there's a dormant mad scientist part of myself that screams "Choke on that, balance!" and demands that this experiment be affected immediately.

--Brian

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

Point one: if you turn time back any everyone loses all memory and you get caught up in the memory loss, you're going to carry through with your plans... over and over and over again. The universe has ended.

Point two: if you dont there are complications.
-how would you look at someone you killed just to see how it felt?
-what happens when you dont watch the clock closely enough, and run one minute past pressing the Big Red Button

Point three: fairly busy gallery today, so im gone.

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

Point four: maybe brutally slaughtering his enemies then turning back time was how Buddah and Ghandi kept their composure so well? :)

[grayhame.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry I'm a day late for this discussion!

While hereticorp argues that morality is not communal, I think the opposite is true: Morality has to be communal. Morals are the cumulative sense of right and wrong, and one person in a vacuum can't discern the two. It's only when there are two or more people who make different choices given the same circumstances that "right" and "wrong" can be interpreted.

So it takes two. If two people were both given the power to do anything for three days and then reverse it, they could argue morality afterward. If one commits a murder while the other one learns how to stop a murder, they will certainly have some issues to discuss. For the rest of us who can't reverse the three days though, there is no moral issue at all. It seems to us like the murderer didn't do anything special, and the murder-preventer will turn up in the right place at the right time and end up a hero.

With that said, if you are faced with the moral dilemma of what to do before you erase the last three days, consider not killing anybody else! :-)

~Grayhame

[taktukbrightsea.livejournal.com]

Have you been watching Big O?

I agree with the above posters who say that it would still be wrong. If it was not at random, but to test the effects on the timestream, I would say that it was not wrong, but you said random, so...

I need to get some sleep so I can work tomorrow.

Be well.

[(Anonymous)]

If you knew for certain in three days the world would blow up, but you and you alone would be magically teleported off this rock to live somewhere else. Would it be ok to go on a rampage knowing that in three days everyone else will be dead anyway? I think in this case the answer is no, it's not ok. For the same reason I don't think it's ok in the time turning back case.

Does the memory of a bad act, or lack there of, make the act more or less wrong? I think the answer is no, committing the act is wrong in and of itself.

Now, what makes an act wrong?

-MM