Plan B Forum

From science fiction author David Gerrold' s Facebook page:

• There is a conversation I am loathe to repeat on FB, lest I get a visit from the Secret Service.
  
  But SF writers and those who dabble in history, alternate and real, often discuss possibilities — and someone I know (who is not a writer, but does know his history) was wondering aloud when assassination is appropriate.
  
  His example, of course, is Hitler. Once it became clear that Hitler was on track to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship, at what point was assassination a moral obligation? Hitler escaped multiple assassination attempts — so it was clear that more than a few people had come to the same conclusions about what would bring about an end to the insanity.
  
  Okay, so far so good, because we're talking about a past that cannot be changed.
  
  But now ... my friend says, "How do we know when we have reached that point with Trump?"
  
  Of course, I was quick to point out that such discussions border on criminal, but he waved it away. "I'm not advocating his assassination — I'm asking at what point do people begin to see it as a rational option? At what point would a person consider it a necessity to prevent further degradation of the nation? It's a hypothetical question about a moral equation." And, he added, "If we are considering it, then so are others. And if they have come to the conclusion that there is such a point where assassination is justified, at what point does someone take action?"
  
  He continued, "From a hypothetical point of view, I would say we passed that point when they started putting kids in cages."
  
  I did not argue. I remain committed to due process — to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, where all of the appropriate rules of law are followed.
  
  But if we have a government that has abandoned the rule of law, then where does our commitment lie?
  
  Again. I am not advocating action of any kind — I am considering instead the context in which such action becomes probable. Where are we on the slippery slope?

I also don't advocate any action of this sort—and, to be honest, I don't really expect many (if any) responses here. It's a pretty dangerous subject to discuss publicly. I'm just throwing it out here as a question to maybe think about.

There are always persons who believe assassination is appropriate, as evidenced by our 4 assassinated presidents. Don’t forget that the last president also came under fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wh ... e_shooting in what seems a pretty serious attempt and breach of security.

So the real question being asked is, does a certain kind of despot warrant assassination that would be sanctioned by the wider society?

The absence of a despot and the end of his destructive reign is never a bad thing. That said, the wider society can never sanction assassination. We must always react with horror to language advocating such actions - like the cops fired recently for posting to Facebook suggesting AOC should ‘take a round.’


In some instances - as with Trump - there are doubtless many among us who wish silently, fervently for the madness of a lone wolf or the courage of a patriot.

Just remember that many among us wished for the same under Obama.


#rockthevote

BSG - I'm sorry to use the Hitler example as the reductio ad absurdum...but does your position mean that you think that there is *NO* circumstance in which assassination could be morally justified? That is, if Hitler (or Stalin, or Pol Pot) had been killed before the worst of his excesses had occurred, would that have been morally "right"—or "wrong"?

(Of course, even if one judges an "alternate history" event like this as "right' or "wrong", it may well be that the *ONLY* way a judgement can be made is after-the-fact, with the benefit of hindsight.)

As long as there legal and democratic means of changing government I don’t see how Assassination po can be justified. There might be a case in a situation where the majority supported a government which badly oppressed a minority when assassination is justified but in that case it is unlikely to be effective since the majority can just put in place a new tyrant.

It also depends on the nature of the oppression. Genocide, religiocde (?) or the like might justify even a hopeless attempt to kill a tyrant.

I don’t think we are anywhere close to this point now.

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot deserved to be killed.

Yrs,
Rubato

I would have happily laid down my life in joining any of the failed assassination attempts against Adolf Hitler, and I laud the patriots who took those actions on behalf of the fatherland and ultimately humankind.

I feel the same about other despots historical and contemporary - that's as clear as I can be in a public forum.



And I reiterate that the larger society must never endorse assassination as a legitimate means of regime change.

rubato wrote:Genocide, religiocde (?) or the like might justify even a hopeless attempt to kill a tyrant.

I don’t think we are anywhere close to this point now.

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot deserved to be killed.

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, and Pol Pot — and their followers — killed people by the thousands, if not the millions ... so they "deserved to be killed".  What is Trump's "magic number" before he too becomes 'deserving'?

And why do we need to wait that long?  Imagine what might have happened in 1944 Germany if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded.

We still have the rules of law ... weakened though they are.  Let's use 'em BEFORE it becomes necessary to go the "lone gunman in the book depository window" route.

-"BB"-

Has anybody had a go at this - the Moral Machine surveying people's ideas of what a self-driving car should do in the event of brake failure? Moral choices carry a lot of freight.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ edited to add the link

Back on point, I have no doubt that the human reaction (in the case of extreme politics) is to terminate a problem that is too costly to bear. Hitler et al (yes, even him) are easily disposed of, morally speaking. One life to save many. However, there is no line to be drawn if that becomes an acceptable moral solution.

It is not different than the calculations of Hitler himself - kill X millions in order to save XX millions from ... (insert your value judgement here). There are times when a person is whittering on about something of which I most strongly disapprove that I consider killing the fool to be an act of mercy. This can arise, albeit momentarily, by spelling/vocalizing "could've" as "could of". Hot buttons all over.

The only correct answer to the dilemma of terminal solutions to ne'er-do-well political figures is to resist all temptation to extreme prejudice and to let the democratic process take its course. It is a foul lie to think that "taking care of" one person you don't approve of (no matter what their actions) is any "better" than the choices made by . . . oh, the Grand Wiz of the KKK in "taking care of" someone of whom he does not approve.

No difference at all - both utterly wrong. It's something to do with the "in cold blood" thing, isn't it?

(But of course, put a gun in my hand when thugs are about to despoil my family or anyone else's. . . and all bets are off. We are a malleable species).

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Has anybody had a go at this - the Moral Machine surveying people's ideas of what a self-driving car should do in the event of brake failure? Moral choices carry a lot of freight.

Yes that is one of themajor questions in the self driving sphere. Currently the thought is to protect the occupants over others. (No one is going to want to buy a car that could decide to kill them) But it is also realized that at a certain point that calculus falls flat. The question is so difficult that they figure the programming will change after specific situations arise and lawsuits are to be expected.

You could rephrase this question thus.

Suppose a childhood disease exists which kills one child in a hundred. Obviously there are many parents who are concerned, and a doctor develops a vaccine, to be administered to all newborns, which is 99% effective in protecting against the disease. In other words, now one child in ten thousand will die of the disease.

During testing, no problems are found. However, once the vaccine is released and is in general use, a few unexplained deaths are recorded, and it emerges that a rare genetic flaw, hitherto thought to be of no consequence, causes the child to react badly to the vaccine and die. This genetic flaw is present in about 0.05% of the population.

Is it ethical to introduce this vaccine? There are 4 million births per year in the US. Thus in the bad old days, before the vaccine, there would be around 40,000 infant deaths per year due to this disease. The vaccine, widely administered, would reduce this death toll to 400. However, 2000 children would die due to the vaccine and their genetic makeup. Note that is a different subset of children than those who would contract the original disease.

Net effect: the vaccine saves (40,000 - 400 - 2,000 =) 37,600 lives per year. Is it moral or ethical to keep using this vaccine?

(Note that the advent of cheap genetic testing has made this question easier to answer than it might have been 30 years ago. Polymerase chain reaction [PCR]testing is now such a widespread technique that, at least in a scientifically developed country, testing for the gene which causes the adverse reaction might cost only $100 or less. But it does put a price on a life. Using the above numbers, if all children were screened at birth for this gene, the cost would be $400,000,000 per year in the US. This would save 2,000 lives at a cost of $200,000 each. USEPA in making decisions assigns a value of around $10,000,000 per human life. Clearly a US public agency, in looking at the data, would conclude that it's worth it. It's possible to imagine countries where the assigned value of a human life is less and the decision might not be so clear cut.)

I point to one 20th century figure--Dietrich Bonhoeffer-- as an individual of profound moral principles and far above average intellectual skills who carefully examined this issue and gave very complex answers. His actions were pretty direct but he left a literary legacy of at least 16 volumes, plus index

I also point to an earlier committee who worked on a similar problem and who came to the conclusion that assassination was not enough, the entire system must be completely changed. They gave a pretty good rationale in their official report, generally called 'The Declaration of Independence.'

snailgate.

At this point I would like to state one of my Principles: What you do to your enemy your enemy has a right to you. Other than self-defense and defense of one’s home and family the only time it is acceptable to kill a person is in war.

The village idiot, like a broken clock, is also pretty much correct in this case. The other examples previously cited are of those who had assumed dictatorial powers and had waged war, at least in part, on their own populations. There are democratic processes, however imperfect, at work in our countries to remove their leaders. If those processes are clearly being subverted in order to keep those leaders in power (for example, if state legislatures were to vitiate election results by assigning electoral votes contrary to the expressed will of their state's voters), then that would constitute a coup which, whether or not backed by the use of force, would constitute another form of warfare on the populace and thus could justify violent overthrow.

Maybe just this once, but I'm with lib on this one. There were apparently British plots to kill Hitler late in the war (it was definitely thought to be 'not cricket' earlier) but in the end, well after D-Day, the plans were abandoned because Hitler was such an awful strategist that it was thought best to leave him in place lest someone actually competent should take his place. There is something similar going on here in the US at the moment, in that one argument (I've made it myself but I'm not sure that I believe it) against impeachment is that if successful (it won't be) we would get Pence who has a semblance of competence that Trump does not have.

rubato wrote:As long as there legal and democratic means of changing government I don’t see how Assassination po can be justified.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:The only correct answer to the dilemma of terminal solutions to ne'er-do-well political figures is to resist all temptation to extreme prejudice and to let the democratic process take its course.

Scooter wrote:The village idiot, like a broken clock, is also pretty much correct in this case. The other examples previously cited are of those who had assumed dictatorial powers and had waged war, at least in part, on their own populations. There are democratic processes, however imperfect, at work in our countries to remove their leaders. If those processes are clearly being subverted in order to keep those leaders in power (for example, if state legislatures were to vitiate election results by assigning electoral votes contrary to the expressed will of their state's voters), then that would constitute a coup which, whether or not backed by the use of force, would constitute another form of warfare on the populace and thus could justify violent overthrow.

These statements go to the heart of the question, and my own answer to the question. As long as there is a chance for the Rule of Law to come to the rescue and save us, the possibility of assassination is off the table. But Trump and McConnell have already shown us what they think of the rule of law, and currently their only real restraint is the fear of the next election. If — *IF* — those two are still in power in January 2021 and they have the chance to install another sycophant or two on the Supreme Court.....*THEN* (IMHO) we will have skied off the take-off table at the end of the slippery slope.