Philosophical Question of the Day . . .

[indianasmith]

I posted this one on my FB page and it got a LOT of great responses (it's still ongoing, in fact).
So here goes:

If you could go back in time and prevent the untimely death of any one person in history, who would it be?

(To avoid a huge religious debate, let's exempt Jesus of Nazareth from this discussion.  Plus, he has a track record of not staying dead!)

[lester1/2jr]

I guess John Lennon would be an obvious answer. The Beatles were and remain so hugely influential, he could have gone on to have done amazing things that alas we'll never experience.

On the political side, I wonder if the US had taken care to protect Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan if she could have fomented a different kind of Arab Spring. Certainly Musharif and these people were not capable of anything like that. A pro democracy person who also had popular support is rare in the Muslim world.

[zombie no.one]

Kurt Cobain.

similar reasons to what Lester said about Lennon.

I personally don't rate Lennon's post Beatles work that much. (that's not to say I wouldn't have liked him to live longer instead of being shot, of course)

- nitpicking here slightly, but I wouldn't class this as a philosophical question...

[lester1/2jr]

more of a hypothetical

Zombie-  When I saw Nirvana, Cobain catapulted his guitar about 30 feet upwards and nailed a disco ball in 2 or 3 tries. circa In Utero

[JaseSF]

Martin Luther King Jr.: he was a good man doing a lot of good. He also promoted change through nonviolence.

[ulthar]

Due to the Law of Unintended Consequences in combination with Butterfly Effect, I would not do it. 

How do you know that by preventing that one death, something far worse (and unpredictable) wouldn't happen?

There is also God's Will.  We don't know <i>why</i> ANYTHING happens, but things that seem bad to us can, and often do, turn out part of a greater good.  It's not our place to question these things.  Humbleness before the great mysteries of the universe is, I believe, a worthy goal in life.

[indianasmith]

In reality, you are probably quite correct, Ulthar.  Have you read Stephen King's 11/22/63?
It's a whole novel devoted to the premise of someone going back in time to prevent JFK from being killed.
That being said, if we were given the capability, could we not argue that God gave us that ability so that we could use it?

As far as my choice, I bounce back and forth between Abraham Lincoln - goodness knows his wisdom and enormous political skills
would have brought a more fair and just Reconstruction than the train wreck that was the duel between Andrew Johnson and Congress -
and Gaius Julius Caesar.  Caesar did some great things and some terrible things, but I truly believe his desire was to mend the
Republic, not to destroy it.  Also, the gross unfairness of his death - an unarmed man carrying out his duties, cut down by 22 armed
men, none of whom were worthy to undo his bootstrap, politically or militarily - it just always seemed wrong, somehow.

[ulthar]

Have you read Stephen King's 11/22/63?

I have not.  We have it around here somewhere.  My wife has asked me several times if I've read it yet.

could we not argue that God gave us that ability so that we could use it?

Sure.  That's similar to the argument that God gave us the abilities afforded by medical science to effect change in the course of disease and injury.

But when you enter time travel into the conversation, other problems are created.  Would it be moral to save Lincoln's life if that caused another person to never be born, even if that person was just some Joe Schmoe we have never heard of?  Or, how about a variant of the Grandfather Paradox.  We don't have to "kill our own Grandfather" for the paradox to still apply; what if saving Lincoln or Caesar caused YOU to never be born to go back in time and be the one to save him?

One of the beauties of philosophical and hypothetical discussions is that there is no right answer.

In that spirit, then...how about picking some unheard of peasant that died unpleasantly of Black Death?  Or perhaps one of the Jews at Auschwitz whose name we don't know? How to pick which one?

Alternatively, picking Lincoln...we don't know that he would not have turned into a power-mad dictator by '66. (no subtext, just a hypothetical comment). 

Thorny...

[/quote]

[indianasmith]

I've always understood it that if you did go back and alter the past, you could not return to the future you came from because it would no longer exist.
Overall, with that in mind, it would probably be better to be known as "the guy that saves Caesar from the daggers" than "the guy that saved Lincoln from a pistol."

[Jack]

I wouldn't save anybody.  There would be an awful lot more people alive today if it weren't for all these "great men".  And these people credited with social change;  if you look at how things turned out in the end, well if that's what they call success I'd hate to see failure.

If anything I'd save some young innocent who died in a car crash or something. 

[zombie no.one]

more of a hypothetical

Zombie-  When I saw Nirvana, Cobain catapulted his guitar about 30 feet upwards and nailed a disco ball in 2 or 3 tries. circa In Utero

Random act of violence against a disco ball!  

My friend had tickets for Nirvana's Cardiff gig on the in Utero tour, then of course he shot himself before they were played.

Actually kurt OD'd in Rome shortly before that as well. He had self destructive tendencies, so maybe it would be pointless going back and 'saving' him, cause he'd just do it again.

I'll change my vote to Hendrix. He surely had years of musical exploration in front of him

[Rev. Powell]

Mozart. Possibly the greatest musical genius in history, died at only 35. Who knows what masterpieces he would have composed if he lived another 30 years? I'd be willing to gamble on unintended consequences.

[Flangepart]

Overall, with that in mind, it would probably be better to be known as "the guy that saves Caesar from the daggers" than "the guy that saved Lincoln from a pistol."

Known by who? (And I don't mean the Doctor.)

Actions have unchangeable consequences. That's how we build a consistent memory, and therefor exist as conscious beings. Time Travel is based on the old desire to change the past...but change it too much, and how do we exist?
If Alzheimer's take's your memory...where does the real you go?

[ulthar]

if you did go back and alter the past, you could not return to the future you came from because it would no longer exist.

Not returning to the future (any future) does not remove the paradox.

Our present timeline: Indy did not save Lincoln because Indy was not born until the 20th century.  Indy did not exist at Ford's Theater.

Altered timeline: Indy saves Lincoln at Ford's Theater (or SOMETHING to prevent that action).  But...how did Indy get there to do that? Even if it was an innocuous act far removed from the actual shooting.  Who is your Mom?  Where were you 10 years prior?  How exactly did you just "pop up," and does no one even ask, "Hey, who's this guy?"

Once you change the timeline, the future also changes.  It is POSSIBLE in this scenario that the future does not change in a way that precludes you from going back or even existing.  But, that's not deterministic.  The problem is, what if the act of "saving Lincoln" means Indy was never born? Since Indy saved Lincoln, and now "space-time" has been altered in such a way that Indy never existed, who saved Lincoln to create the situation that Indy was never born?

The problem is not you returning to the future. It's a real paradox; it can't be solved.  The problem is the overlap of two timelines by you (someone from the future in our timeline) preventing something in the past.  The overlap is the problem.

With that out of the way, I'd be very careful about risking those unintended consequences.  What if by saving Caesar, his continued life led to mass extinction, such as pandemic during the Middle Ages or nuclear war in 1955?  Would that be worth it?  That's the problem with the Butterfly Effect; you just don't know.

But hey...no "right" answer. That's what distinguishes science from philosophy.  The latter is far happier with speculation.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I'll change my vote to Hendrix. He surely had years of musical exploration in front of him

I second that.  I bet he would have reshaped later music for generations.   Plus he seemed inherently less pretentious than those Liverpool guys, or Jim Morrison.

-Ed