Consequentialist argument According to
consequentialism, the morality of any given action is judged solely by its consequences. Consequentialist ethics raises the dichotomy of immediate foreseeable consequences versus unforeseeable potential consequences; for example, in the story of Johann Kühberger saving a young Hitler from drowning, the immediate positive consequences of saving a person's life was the motivating factor, but it also resulted in the eventual negative consequences of Hitler's rise to power. In a 2000 essay on consequentialism, British philosopher
James Lenman posited a German bandit in 100 BCE sparing the life of one of Hitler's distant ancestors. According to consequentialism, although the bandit sparing her life led to the unforeseeable future crimes of Hitler, he was not wrong to do so, as killing her could have led to even worse unforeseeable consequences. Killing baby Hitler also raises the possibility of unforeseen consequences, including the commonly cited possibility that someone even worse than Hitler could rise to power in his place. As the consequences of killing baby Hitler are not known, the problem lacks a clear solution.
Deontological argument According to
deontology, the morality of an action is determined by certain
ethical values, rather than by circumstances. Even in the case that it would benefit the
common good, deontology opposes killing out of the belief that all human beings have an "inalienable value". Deontological ethics thus argues against killing baby Hitler, as it considers killing babies to always be wrong, irrespective of any potential consequences.
Utilitarian argument Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that argues for the maximisation of happiness and the minimisation of suffering. According to utilitarian ethics, killing baby Hitler is justified, as it considers the potential benefits to be greater than the moral cost. As Hitler was responsible for the suffering of millions of people, utilitarianism posits that killing one baby Hitler is justifiable in order to save millions of innocent lives. In this way, the question of killing baby Hitler resembles the
trolley problem, which utilitarianism responds to similarly. Arguments against the utilitarian response conclude that focusing on killing baby Hitler, without any guarantee of preventing future suffering, means that the only guaranteed outcome is that the time traveller would have committed the moral evil of
infanticide. American philosopher Janet Stemwedel therefore considers killing baby Hitler to be an unreliable means for maximising happiness. Stemwedel posits that applying utilitarian ethics to time travel favours
causation over human agency, disregarding the capacity for humans to choose different paths and change.
Nature versus nurture To Canadian psychologist
Julia Shaw, the answer one gives to the baby Hitler question is telling of their view on
nature versus nurture: people who would kill baby Hitler may have a
deterministic view of individual predisposition towards evil, while people that would not kill baby Hitler may place higher value on environmental factors of upbringing and social conditions. In a psychoanalysis of Hitler's infancy, Austrian psychiatrist
Frederick Redlich found that he was "a fairly normal child" and showed few signs of the
genocidal intent or
dictatorial tendencies that would characterise his adulthood. As there is no scientific explanation for Hitler's later actions based on his
genetics, greater attention is often paid to Hitler's early childhood environment. In a refutation of the
great man theory, it can be argued that killing baby Hitler would not eliminate this cultural environment, which would still result in other people growing up to pursue
far-right politics and genocidal policies. From this perspective, Janet Stemwedel argues that using time travel to change social conditions would be preferable to infanticide, as it would recognise that the responsibility for Hitler's actions lie not just with him, but also in the
collective responsibility of those that raised, followed and elected him.
Limitations The moral justification for killing baby Hitler usually rests on the question of whether a child can be held responsible for its future actions before having committed any
crimes against humanity yet. A follow-up question can then be posed regarding where the line ends for killing babies that would commit crimes against humanity. The question of where the line ends was brought up by American activist
Shaun King, who argued that the logic for killing baby Hitler could just as easily be applied to a newborn
Christopher Columbus, infant
slave-owners or a young
Dylann Roof. Australian moral philosopher Matthew Beard likewise brought up the idea of babies
Pol Pot and
Joseph Stalin, arguing that a clear set of ethical principles would be needed to determine which historical babies deserve to be killed. ==In theoretical physics==