What benefit would you require to convince yourself that this could continue?
We're very nearly done with all of the philosophical thought experiments I'm planning to cover, so I hope by now that you've grown to trust me to deal with controversial subjects in a respectful manner. This week's experiment could be very disturbing for some people.
--------------------------------------------------
The emissary had been sent by Hitler under the utmost secrecy. If the British ever tried to reveal the nature of his mission publicly, Berlin would deny all knowledge of the trip and denounce him as a traitor. But that would surely not be necessary. No one could see how Churchill could refuse the deal he had to offer.
Hitler knew that Churchill wanted to avoid needless casualties. Both leaders realised that a conflict between the two nations would cost countless thousands of lives. But war could be averted. Hitler was offering guarantees that, once the Final Solution was completed, no further offensives would be launched and only insurgents within the lands he occupied would be killed. That would certainly mean there would be fewer lives lost than if Britain attempted to liberate France and overthrow the Nazi regime in Germany.
The Führer was sure this would appeal to the leader of the country that had invented utilitarianism. After all, who could prefer a course of action that would lead to more deaths over one that would lead to fewer?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 295.
---------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Is there a cost too high to stop genocide? Can you ever do a deal with the devil? I'll be back on Friday with my thoughts on this.
--------------------------------------------------
The emissary had been sent by Hitler under the utmost secrecy. If the British ever tried to reveal the nature of his mission publicly, Berlin would deny all knowledge of the trip and denounce him as a traitor. But that would surely not be necessary. No one could see how Churchill could refuse the deal he had to offer.
Hitler knew that Churchill wanted to avoid needless casualties. Both leaders realised that a conflict between the two nations would cost countless thousands of lives. But war could be averted. Hitler was offering guarantees that, once the Final Solution was completed, no further offensives would be launched and only insurgents within the lands he occupied would be killed. That would certainly mean there would be fewer lives lost than if Britain attempted to liberate France and overthrow the Nazi regime in Germany.
The Führer was sure this would appeal to the leader of the country that had invented utilitarianism. After all, who could prefer a course of action that would lead to more deaths over one that would lead to fewer?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 295.
---------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Is there a cost too high to stop genocide? Can you ever do a deal with the devil? I'll be back on Friday with my thoughts on this.
