Saturday, October 24, 2015

Preempting Hitler

Some of this is pertinent to the argument from evil: the contention that a good God would prevent horrendous evils. What that overlooks is the hypothetical future which replaces the status quo. Each alternative may be better in some respects, but worse in others:


  1. Pretty mind stretching.

  2. One thing I never see mentioned in the "Killing Hitler" conundrum - Social Darwinism was at the cutting edge of science when Hitler came to power. 22 states in the US were practicing forced sterilization if you had a 3rd generation alcoholic, epileptic, or just (as it was called) shiftless. Parts of Norway and France were also engaged in this type of 'social improvement' as well as other countries. Britain was considering it.
    While, by no means, do I undervalue the horror and the loss of all those who died in the Holocaust and in the war itself, please take a moment and imagine what the world would be like if there was no Hitler or WWII (or any conflict of that nature) but Social Darwinism was practiced throughout all countries. Would the lose of life and potential life actually exceed what did occur? I say this with all compassion and sympathy to those who have loved ones who died in the conflict - was Hitler the best possible solution to something that we would find infinitely more horrible if WWII had not occurred?