Hypothetical question about knowing the future?

[Talleyrand]

Say my wife and I are trying to have a son. I have a vision of the future where I am sure my son will turn out to be a serial killer. He will kill 22 people in his lifetime.

Now if I have this child and later he does kill 22 people does that mean I am vicariously responsible for 22 deaths?

[dj 2way]

Your responisble for not preventing them. But your not responsible for the fact that it was gonna happen.

[Revenant]

C'est la vie

[Element 115]

you are solely responsible, yes. If you had never had your little vision in the first place then he wouldn't have turned out that way...how could you do that to your own son?

[Revenant]

The question is way to vague for my meager analytical brain. I'll dissect it apart and come to the conclusion that, no - it's not your fault.

Philosophy is not my strong suit.

Has the father had preminitions that have come true in the past? Then maybe, but I'm still not sold. And if he has, did he try to change something in the child to make sure he didnt grow up that way? See where I'm going?

Fuck it. The world is varying shades of gray to me. There are no black and whites.

[dj 2way]

you are solely responsible, yes. If you had never had your little vision in the first place then he wouldn't have turned out that way...how could you do that to your own son?

I think the future was inevitable. So he's only responsible for what he does with his knowledge after seein the future. His vision of the future is not what creates the future.

[Travesty]

Say my wife and I are trying to have a son. I have a vision of the future where I am sure my son will turn out to be a serial killer. He will kill 22 people in his lifetime.

Now if I have this child and later he does kill 22 people does that mean I am vicariously responsible for 22 deaths?dont mention it and nothing will come of it

[dj 2way]

dont mention it and nothing will come of it

Don't tell anyone what you wish for and it will come true. Come on thats superstition homie.

[AerosolGuerilla]

hahahaha

but seriously it could just be a wierd vision you had and if it did happen it wouldnt be your fault people a soley responsible for there actions imo

[Alien]

Interetsing. This will all depend on what system of laws you choose to go by.
The obvious question would be whether you see future as being cast in stone or not.
Could your son 'repent' and choose not to kill people?
Does he have free will to choose to live his life an alternative way, and do you have the power to change the way he turns out?

Since this question is pretty unanswered, i'd say there's no way you'd be able to take action against him (ie. kill him) in the case of this probability.

Also, especially Biblically, it is wrong to exact judgement on someone because of what they are going to do. You can only judge someone according to what they have already done.

So, if your son can't be held accountable for his future deeds, there's no way you can be held accountable for them, unless of course you do nothing to change the course of future events.

[Revenant]

First off...


A hypothetical question is one that is answered only in terms of validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), not soundness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness). Thus the question is designed to make a number of assumptions, and be answered as if those assumption are true.
For example, a person may ask: Would you eat the moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon), if it were made of barbeque spare ribs? This question presupposes that the moon is made of barbeque spare ribs, and asks only whether or not you would eat it. An objection based upon the composition of the moon is not an appropriate answer for the question, as that is given to be decided. Only answers such as yes, no or depends on what kind of sauce is available would be valid answers for this hypothetical question.
In law, a hypothetical question is one that comprises of an imaginary situation incorporating facts about the case. A witness can then be asked to answer or to give an opinion on the question and hypothetical situation

Now keep asking yourself why your post was deleted and making an ass out of yourself.

Secondly...

It would seem most everyone sees this question in shades of gray. What I want to know is how the "Masters Degree in Philosophy" answers it. Does all your vast knowlege of mans outlook on life give you the insight to render a black or white, yes or no answer?

Would it depend on what school of philosophy you adhered to?

This question is similar to the far reaching question - if you knew what Hitler was going to do, would you kill him before he had the chance?

Did fate put Hitler here for teaching us a lesson?

Okay, maybe you kill Hitler before he has his time in the global spotlight. What then? Maybe Stalin starts the war and wins and makes Hitlers reign of terror look like a rose garden. Did you do the world a favor?

Hitler might have been the lesser of two evils. Fate is a wicked mistress.

Maybe one of the child serial killers victims is a future Hitler that doesnt need to be, so fate has designed an early violent death for him. Should you interfere with destiny?

As far as holding oneself resposible...it's ludacris.

[Element 115]

ultimately, I think it would depend on the validity of your visions of the future. If you hadn't had any past visions that have come true and there are no records in history of anyone predicting the future than you would not be responsible.

The question is, if you hadn't had the vision would your son still be a murderer?

[Tone Space]

Diack, this question is not your style.I'm surprised, but pleased you brought it up.its nice to see the strong willed servant of absolutes actually wonder about something.

Now on to my theory.
On one hand you have a time line, where sequences of events happen within that universe.
On the other hand, you have parellel universes where events take different turns.
By having a preminition of the future, you are having a vision of an event within the universe you currently occupy.
However, the fact that you have the vision, in itself, changes the course of the future.Consequently, it puts you in the parellel universe where everything is the same; except now you are knowledgeable of a future event from the universe where you would not have the vision.
Automatically you can change the outcome because you are in a new universe where the future is unknown.
Basically the future can not be known through a vision exactly how you vision it.The fact that you have the vision gives you the ability to change it, thus making the future, in the universe you now occupy, unknown.
Now according to your question, having the vision results in the event happening anyway.Then that would mean that your vision was part of the reason it hapens.Meaning your vision puts you in the universe where it happens, where without the vision; you'd probably be in the parellel world where it did not happen.
According to your question, you have the ultimate power to prevent the event from coming true.You have the option not to impregnate your wife.
You can either enter a universe where the event does not happen.Or remain in the one where it does.
If your upbringing of your son is counteractive to the personality of him killing 22 people, then no, you are not responsible for the event in any way.
It would just be the result of a chain of events.

[furst]

@element

I don't think that the question has anything to do with the validity of his vision. It is assumed that his vision is a true prophecy of sorts, and the question is really about fate and our responsibility and ability to alter it.

[Revenant]

This is at Tone.

I'm not so sure of your idea of once you know the future it's already changed because you know it. I still believe firmly in fate, so imagine an individual knowing that some future event will take place, so he does everything in his power to prevent it, but it happens exactly how he saw it anyway. Confused, he looks back over what he did and realises that it was his attempts at changing the event are actually what caused it. He would have been better off doing absolutely nothing. Just because you know of a future event does not mean your actions of trying to prevent it can not be the events that cause it.

I think I'm going nuts here 'cause this is like some Butterfly Effect shit.
And how the fuck did this get so serious?

[Tone Space]

Well Carpe, I like the way Talleyrand asked the question.He left it oopen for him to change the future.Because he said he's trying to have a child with his wife.so if he doesn't get her pregnant, she won't have his son to kill 22 people.
But in general, I feel you.He could have a vision of the event and that itself , and his attempts tol prevent it, could be what causes it.
Now imma get real sci-fi.I think that if you travel to the future, meaning physically put yourself in that future where a certain event is going to happen, then travel back to your own time, then you can change that event, because your going back and forth between your own universe.so that knowledge will put you on a new course, or alternative universe where you can prevent or alter the event.
But if you have a vision of a future event, you're not physically going forward in your own universe's timeline, so for all you know, it can be unchangeable, because that vision could be a result of whatever your future experience results in, no matter how you physically react to that information.
So yeah, being that its a vision, it could very well result in the event occuring no matter what you do to prevent it.

[Revenant]

Okay, I think I see your point. If you could physically travel to the future, then you could find out exactly what happened to cause the event and take appropiate measures to prevent it. Whereas if you only saw the event in a vision, you dont really have a clue as to what exactly causes it.

But I still believe it's a crap shoot. Changing something in the future you dont like might not give you the blessings you think it will.

So I am now ready to give a black and white answer to the question.

Now if I have this child and later he does kill 22 people does that mean I am vicariously responsible for 22 deaths?

No.

[Horus]

Im just gonna jump in and add that, he could have the dream, and then be so upset by it, that he changes the way he would raise a child, and perhaps also change the future for that child. Time, and (the future), are relative, and therefore, not predestined, since ahhh shit, nevermind.

[Element 115]

if back to the future has taught us anything, it's that the future is entirely in your hands in which case you are entirely responsible for those deaths, in that it could be prevented by you not having an evil demon baby.

However if we view the question in light of the Terminator then we know there is no way to change the future no matter what we do and the birth of your murdering son is inevitable along with the deaths he caused, in which case you would not be responsible, because it is inevitable.

[Talleyrand]

If the person decides to go on and have the child, that person may be responsible but does that person have an obligation to not have the child? Is that person morally bound to not have a child if he knows the consequences? There seems to be a two-pronged problem here: first, the problem of responsibility and then the further question of moral obligation.

[Revenant]

Why do i feel like this is some kind of test and at some point you're going to tell me you always knew I was a sociopath?

I still cant get over the non certainty of having a precognitive vision. I would still have the child and then reffer to my first post.

[Element 115]

no, because it's a whole different person. Every person is responsible for his or her own fate. I guess the responsibility would have have to be on your own conscience.
Now if you say, molested your kid then you might be held responsible. this is kinda like the situation about the guy whos going to execute 20 people unless you kill one of them.

[Tone Space]

If the person decides to go on and have the child, that person may be responsible but does that person have an obligation to not have the child? Is that person morally bound to not have a child if he knows the consequences? There seems to be a two-pronged problem here: first, the problem of responsibility and then the further question of moral obligation.
no, they don't have an obligation to not have the child, because until the child murders 22 people, the parent doesn't know that that vision is definite.so there is no definite responsibility or obligation, because the person won't know the vision is correct until after the event happens.

[The Boogeyman]

Time cannot change my kiddies.
Forward or backwards!!
It just keeps

on

ticking


tick

TOCK!!

[Talleyrand]

the parent doesn't know that that vision is definite.

But what if you are sure it will happen? That is the matter.

[Tone Space]

But what if you are sure it will happen? That is the matter.
thats hard to quantify if its a vision.because if it does happen you can always fall back on the excuse that you had doubts it was absolutely an unchangeable event.
if somehow you knew for sure that your son would kill 22 people, which i can't see someone knowing based on just a vision; then yeah the parent would hold some responsibility.it would be like saying "Am i responsible for your death because i aimed a gun at you and pulled the trigger, even though the bullet is what killed you."but i just don't see a vision having the same pre-cognitive certainty of an outcome as that.

[Talleyrand]

thats hard to quantify if its a vision.because if it does happen you can always fall back on the excuse that you had doubts it was absolutely an unchangeable event.

No, you can't. That is why you are sure.

You're trying to take a backdoor way out of the question. The question of the thread is hypothetical, meaning that you must go by the guidelines of the question. If you are sure that this event will happen if you have this child, then does that make you responsible when it happens?

[Jim Blastingame]

if you are one hundred percent sure your kid is gonna kill 22 people without a shadow of a doubt anddd you go ahead and have the kid anyway then yes you are responsible cos your no longer taking a chance that your vision was just a daydream or something. thats like saying im one hunddred percent sure that if i put this knife in your chest your gonna die and then you do it anyway just to make sure.

you responsible.

[Tone Space]

No, you can't. That is why you are sure.

You're trying to take a backdoor way out of the question.

not really, i answered it in my previous post according to the hypothetical certainty.it would hold the same responsibilty as if it were the father who had to kill 22 people or else his pregnant wife would have her son aborted.
i just added that a vision is a weak premise to base that certainty on.

[acidhouse]

Slightly off the question.. But. I don't believe in fate, but believe if you're having thoughts like that, and you take them serious, you shouldn't have a kid, as he might pick up on these thoughts through your actions and shit. Which might lead to him actually doing it, or some issues.
So no, to the fairy tale way, yes to the scientific. Hopefully that makes sense...

[uk goon]

im not angry, just confused

[Alien]

You could always just have a daughter instead of a son, that way you avoid the dilamma.

Greek Mythology is great when it comes to Oracles. In most, if not all cases, no matter how hard the person tried to affect the Oracle's prediciton, it always ended up happening in one way or another.

If the preminition was of your first born son becoming a murderer, you could always just have a C-section birth. In many cultures that doesn't count as a first born. And even if you have a natural second birth, it also wont count as a first born.

...this is if the preminition relates only to your first born.

But, if you take these precautions with the genuine intention of invalidating the prediciton, you shouldn't be held responsible because you tried to stop it from happening.

[lewallen]

there would be no legal groud for them to prosacute you, though whatevre guilt you have to yourself is another story.

[jadthegrey]

Say my wife and I are trying to have a son. I have a vision of the future where I am sure my son will turn out to be a serial killer. He will kill 22 people in his lifetime.

Now if I have this child and later he does kill 22 people does that mean I am vicariously responsible for 22 deaths?
We are responsible for your actions and attitudes.

You cannot be responsible for his.

If fear (of what your child could do) rules your life then that may be what causes him to go the way he does.

If you are believer in God then what parents need to do is bring the child up in the fear of the LORD with love and discipline. But if u are not, our responsibility is to bring the child up correctly with love and discipline.

Regards,
Jad

[Awesomo sexytime]

this is simple, have the kid
perhaps it will be a girl and you won't have to worry
but if you have a boy kill at the first sign of strangeness