...Unless it was something really good, something worth doing again.
Ethics of time travel
- Thread starter mariya94
- Start date
...Unless it was something really good, something worth doing again.
I wonder how much of this conversation is really about ethics.
Changing something isn't necessarily unethical in and of itself. The question of ethics is of harmful repercussions or that violate rights in some way.
When you delve into the finer points in all of this, it can come to questions of prioritizing rights, whose rights take precedence, or a wide range of complicated paradoxical ethical dilemmas, and as they relate to circumstances. But it all centers around the knowledge and ability to understand what are inalienable rights, what is liberty, what is freedom, what is the right thing to do, etc.
My logic is this; You can't go wrong by doing right. If you do what you do in the interest of truth and righteousness, in love and respect, the end result will almost always be a clean one, free of guilt or adverse repercussions, at least for those who are rightful in their being.
Changing something isn't necessarily unethical in and of itself. The question of ethics is of harmful repercussions or that violate rights in some way.
When you delve into the finer points in all of this, it can come to questions of prioritizing rights, whose rights take precedence, or a wide range of complicated paradoxical ethical dilemmas, and as they relate to circumstances. But it all centers around the knowledge and ability to understand what are inalienable rights, what is liberty, what is freedom, what is the right thing to do, etc.
My logic is this; You can't go wrong by doing right. If you do what you do in the interest of truth and righteousness, in love and respect, the end result will almost always be a clean one, free of guilt or adverse repercussions, at least for those who are rightful in their being.
- Messages
- 4,025
I sort of agree with timecore. If one were to put too many rules into time travel, he would be regarded as an authoritarian figure. There should be rules for time travel/changing history, as long as they can prevent something undesirable or negative. But if good intentions are used for changing history, leading to something positive, then chances are rules need not apply.
I agree with both of you. Rules would screw it all up, BADLY.
I posit that, considering the complex, paradoxical and fluid nature of time travel, there are no set of rules that could possibly come anywhere close to keeping up with it. No amount of rules are going to keep it orderly. Order will come out of the chaos as is with the nature of the universe.
However, there must be some type of frame of reference or standard in which to govern your decisions. This is why ethics are so important. As long as you have a sound ethical standard, things should work out in a way as to minimize the possibility of adverse repercussions. That standard is as I mentioned above; inalienable rights.
Of course, this should be weighed against the functional aspects of things. That is to say that you can still do right, that you can maintain a high level of ethics and still cause harm via the butterfly effect. It is to say there will always be the chance of unintended and/or unavoidable consequences.
I posit that, considering the complex, paradoxical and fluid nature of time travel, there are no set of rules that could possibly come anywhere close to keeping up with it. No amount of rules are going to keep it orderly. Order will come out of the chaos as is with the nature of the universe.
However, there must be some type of frame of reference or standard in which to govern your decisions. This is why ethics are so important. As long as you have a sound ethical standard, things should work out in a way as to minimize the possibility of adverse repercussions. That standard is as I mentioned above; inalienable rights.
Of course, this should be weighed against the functional aspects of things. That is to say that you can still do right, that you can maintain a high level of ethics and still cause harm via the butterfly effect. It is to say there will always be the chance of unintended and/or unavoidable consequences.
Last edited:
I believe that some people would want to see the adverse repurcusion.So they would alter history to go to a parallel universe to see it.Then those that don't want that would alter it back.Then they would be in another alternate universe.But then again if one is smarter than the other how would that happen.Maybe this would cause you both to endlessly alter the past.
Last edited:
Yes, I suppose that is definitely something to consider. Thought exercises/hypothetical examples are great for this discussion.
Re; Playing God
Whoever you are, whether you are a scientific atheist type or a religious fundamentalist of sorts, most people can agree that 'God' can be defined as the origin, premise, first cause, or creation of all things.
God created the universe as it is. God made reality. God invented the natural order of the universe.
Humans are a product thereof. What defines us as humans is our DNA. Our DNA says we will be as we are, that we will have certain behavioral patterns, wants, needs, etc.. basically anything and everything that makes us human. This is the premise of what are inalienable rights. We have a right to be human, to do and be what we are as per nature and god dictate.
Part of that is being individuals, having a mind of our own.
Freedom and self determination are only limited by what we are capable of as per reality. In other words; freedom to choose can be anything we are physically able to do. It is unbridled, unlimited. We are free to do whatever, to include violating rights.
Liberty is freedom with the ethical standard of respect and value of inalienable rights. Liberty is freedom governed by honoring the rights of others. Liberty is to say that you are free to do anything you like, to be a human and indulge in the human experience(life) up to the point in which your actions violate the rights of others, to indulge in their human experience and pursuit of happiness.
That is to say that your rights end where another's rights begin. They are non-contradictory and equal, universal and absolute.
All that being said; this is my basis for arguing that rights be the standard. If your decisions are based on inalienable rights and the concept of liberty, then you are not playing god, but rather playing by god's rules. It is a solid premise in which to base decisions.
Whoever you are, whether you are a scientific atheist type or a religious fundamentalist of sorts, most people can agree that 'God' can be defined as the origin, premise, first cause, or creation of all things.
God created the universe as it is. God made reality. God invented the natural order of the universe.
Humans are a product thereof. What defines us as humans is our DNA. Our DNA says we will be as we are, that we will have certain behavioral patterns, wants, needs, etc.. basically anything and everything that makes us human. This is the premise of what are inalienable rights. We have a right to be human, to do and be what we are as per nature and god dictate.
Part of that is being individuals, having a mind of our own.
Freedom and self determination are only limited by what we are capable of as per reality. In other words; freedom to choose can be anything we are physically able to do. It is unbridled, unlimited. We are free to do whatever, to include violating rights.
Liberty is freedom with the ethical standard of respect and value of inalienable rights. Liberty is freedom governed by honoring the rights of others. Liberty is to say that you are free to do anything you like, to be a human and indulge in the human experience(life) up to the point in which your actions violate the rights of others, to indulge in their human experience and pursuit of happiness.
That is to say that your rights end where another's rights begin. They are non-contradictory and equal, universal and absolute.
All that being said; this is my basis for arguing that rights be the standard. If your decisions are based on inalienable rights and the concept of liberty, then you are not playing god, but rather playing by god's rules. It is a solid premise in which to base decisions.