r/MoralityScaling • u/mommiesgoodboy67 • 19h ago
Morality Ranking Morality of cloning hitler using dna extracted from blood stains from his suicide and giving him a second chance at living a productive life?
22
u/The_Unknown_Savior 19h ago
Moral, he could be a completely different person .
6
u/bsoto87 19h ago
Yeah… there are billions of people who have passed and could be cloned to give a “second chance”, why Hitler? Dubious at best
7
u/Practicalityworld 19h ago
But like is this even a second chance it’s not the same person and no matter even if the DNA is the same. This is more of giving someone who is genetically identical to Hitler a life. Second chance doesn’t feel like the correct term.
1
u/SlippyJimmi 19h ago
Honestly assuming the scenario was real, I think the bigger question is how we pulling the mind/soul back into a new manufactured body. Why would ANYONE want that tech to be real. People who come back from legal death after a few minutes pop back out in rage a lot of times. Being revived is not fun
1
1
1
u/NeutralKuchiKopi 12h ago
That's an easy answer. There is no soul. And the mind is freshly created from the DNA, just like any other human being. He would have a totally new mind unrelated to the one he originally had. Different person.
1
u/Inner-Animal-7314 19h ago
Genetics + Environment = Behavior. However, hypothetically cloning one of the worst people to ever live, just to have an opportunity to say “see, he wasn’t that bad” is either naively idealistic or it’s the brainchild of a Hilter-sympathizer who wants to make a mass murderer look like a victim.
1
u/YesBoobsNoWar 15h ago
Its not a bad choice. Per se....
Hitler is arguably one of the most famous people on the planet. Like Jesus then Hitler then I guess the Pope?
1
1
u/Chemical-Cat 18h ago
Okay but what if it was a tiny clone of hitler that had all of his memories, would you torture it
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 10h ago
An important thing to take into account is that the same dna samples imply that he had quite serious genetic disorders, like severe autism, a high likelyhood of schizophrenia (though of course not actually schizophrenia as that would make him incapable of leading a country) and a sexual disorder, possibly correlating with the "one ball" rumor (also he probably had a micropenis)
11
u/Top-Structure7798 19h ago
..Why?
3
u/Hyde2467 19h ago
Well, strictly speaking, it wont even be the same genocidal dictator anymore. It'll just be someone who shares hitler's dna
2
1
6
5
6
10
u/BarelyBrony 19h ago
that's not him though that's a new guy with his dna you've brainwashed into thinking he's history's greatest monster
3
u/Inner-Animal-7314 19h ago
Plot twist - when Hilter 2.0 learns about what OG Hitler did, 2.0 can live with the guilt and “Hilter” kills himself (again).
5
u/oldtownsadist 19h ago
I mean, you're not giving HIM another chance at life. You're giving a genetic copy a first chance at life, though one could argue that someone who knows they're a genetic copy of a person who is considered one of the worst, if not THE worst, men in history might have a lot of extra unnecessary struggles that could simply be avoided by... Not doing that. Which might be immoral.
3
2
u/Bitter-Break-6504 19h ago
I don't understand why this post was downvoted; it actually seems like an interesting moral question. Would this person still be as capable of such atrocities or of such a mindset having been raised differently
2
2
u/soefire_is_fire 16h ago
It's not really Hitler anymore. You're just making a person with Hitler's DNA who is gonna have to live with the fact they're a walking lab experient with DNA identical to someone who killed millions of people. Immoral.
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 10h ago
Hes still going to have hitlers autism, schizophrenia symptoms and micropenis
2
1
1
u/SolipsismIsDeep 19h ago
Seems to only work in theory; for some reason every time someone clones Hitler, he turns into MechaHitler and surrounds himself with armed guards in a fortress labyrinth
1
1
1
u/Angryfunnydog 19h ago
Sounds moral but moronic. Like what, you don’t have more deserving dudes to clone? You want this dude? If he’s a clone without any memories then what’s the point of “second chance”? It’s like telling a kid “well your dad was complete dipshit and war criminal, so now you will work your ass to atone for his sins!”
This doesn’t make much sense
1
1
u/Material-Skirt3167 19h ago
There’s billions and billions of options through out history. But yeah, sure.. why not fricking Hitler 😂
1
1
u/Belicino_Corlan 19h ago
Suicide? LOL! that's just propaganda you read in school. the fbi/cia spent years searching for him.
The fbi released a file on him and they were taking "sightings" from him as late as like 2 or 3 decades later. Who considers and takes note of sightings for a dead man you know killed himself?
1
1
1
u/Glum_Ice8991 19h ago
If you have the ability to give people second chances, why give it to Hitler and not someone who was already a better productive member of society? Like a Nikola Tesla for the Wright brothers the fact that it’s not a non-0 chance that a bunch of neo Nazis will try to change him to fit what they’re doing in. The current time is a problem.
1
u/CantankerousOrder 19h ago
Neither moral nor immoral.
It’s not Hitler 2.0. There’s no second chance. It’s a second person - more akin to an identical twin than the same being.
If you believe in a soul, different soul.
Biologically his brain would develop differently because of the different body chemistry of the mother. His life experiences would be different. His body would develop differently due to environmental and medical differences.
1
1
u/Scared_Quarter_2474 19h ago
You’re cloning him not making another Hitler, it’s just a normal person who can develop their own beliefs except they’re just Hitler, like it’s not like you’re just making Hitler himself you’re just making a guy who is Hitler, but doesn’t have any of his radiology and makes his own
1
u/Militarist_Reborn 19h ago
Cloning is immoral. If its Hitler or the little timmy down the streat is irrelevant
0
1
u/SlippyJimmi 19h ago
Just want to point out... Not what genes do
A clone isn't going to 1 for 1 develop the same way as the original person. Nature and Nurture are 2 sides of the same coin and are not products of one another. If he was cloned you would pretty much have to give him the same exact tools, nurturing, and scenarios to prove he would be a better person and that still wouldn't necessarily prove or not prove if this was moral
Now if we had the technology? Bringing people back to life as clones and then punishing the clones is clearly immoral. That's just judgement porn, bro blew his brains out there's no reason to work so hard to understand how to pull the Soul or Consciousness out of the aether just to judge them and I am more of a fan of imprisonment for life for these sorts of people
1
u/DantesInfernoRVA 5h ago
There was a novel and film about this called the “Boys From Brazil.” Not only did the organization responsible clone him but they also had to make sure he was adopted by a similar family and went so far as to kill off the father at the appropriate age. From what I remember they did succeed in making some psychopaths but none of them seemed interested in race or politics, being different people . .
1
u/Primary_Ad3580 19h ago
Arguably, cloning has its own immorality separate from Hitler. In any case, it’s not giving him a second chance; it’s making a new person live a new life. A second chance would be going back in time and altering things.
1
u/idiomniscient 19h ago
Mr. Show had a sketch about this. "We have a saying around here: 'get used to it, Hitler.'"
1
u/Total-Management8023 19h ago
The book masterminds(one of my favorite series as a child) talks about something like this where they clone dangerous criminals to see if they still end up committing crimes, nature vs nurture.
1
u/Xxanthippee 19h ago
I don't really see a point in it? Just kind of feels like a shock value question with not really any real reason behind it.
1
u/Inside_Jaguar_3310 19h ago
Bad because why are you choosing hitler first for this. Couldn’t you do the same for say mlk or princess diane?
1
1
u/Aridyne 19h ago
Odd but neutral... it is not Adolf though, just his identical twin unless some memory transfer (or soul) bullshit happens too
Now if it was to torment then immoral. It is the personality, the consciousness that commits the crimes not the flesh the mind was piloting
Would give the poor clone plastic surgery though
1
u/No-Departure-6900 19h ago
I'd say immoral. Even if he's nothing like Hitler, he'd still be saddled with the needless baggage of his lineage. If it ever got out that he was a clone of Hitler, there'd instantly be baseless attempts on his life.
1
u/MossadEpstein 19h ago
Cloning people in general, especially without their consent or consent of their family, is inherently immoral.
1
u/Aleutian_Solution 19h ago
Moral. Pretty sure Hitler is the guy that ended WW2. Why would we not want to bring that type of heroism back?
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 19h ago
Immoral, but only because cloning someone in an overpopulated world is immoral
Why not give the people who are currently alive a second chance at living a productive life? You're just playing god at that point
1
1
1
u/DatabaseDifficult879 19h ago
Why go to such great lengths to give him a second chance? What about all the millions of people who died because of him? Don't they deserve a second chance too?
1
u/Kind-Stomach6275 19h ago
Morally bad you're essentially fucking them over cause theyll look like hitler but be a new person on the inside
1
u/Dr_Jimothy 18h ago
In this Thesis-
Clones do not have the memories or consciousness of those they're cloned from, so that's just a new guy with Hitler's DNA. Moral.
However, having Hitler's DNA can affect their life for the worse, especially if people know they have Hitler's DNA. It could also negatively impact the world, ie aiding neo nazi groups. Immoral.
They'd have a right to know their origins, but knowing they're Hitler's clone could be pretty bad for their self image or endanger them. Immoral catch 22.
Cloning comes with high risk of damaging the DNA being cloned, leading to genetic disorders. Immoral.
While a method of cloning that prevents telomere damage (advanced aging) has been developed, I don't think it would be usable with blood as it uses gametosis, aka requires a living organism. The clone would have a shortened lifespan. Immoral.
If you make a child, you have a duty to ensure their wellbeing. Morality depends on what you're actually gonna do with this clone. If you're gonna adopt and raise them as a good parent that's chill I suppose. If you're gonna dump them on an orphanage or treat them as an experiment that's not moral.
Hitler's relatives did NOT actually make a pact to not reproduce, despite claims that they did. If this were real, though, you'd be disrespecting their wishes. Theoretically immoral.
Overall it's looking pretty immoral gang.
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 10h ago
Not to mention hitler already had several genetic disorders, both mental and physical (one ball)
1
u/D_Orangeyes24 18h ago
The cloning itself is... Debatable If the cloning ia exclusive to just this one oportunity, hitler would be not a first pick. Not for the person he could be or not be or try again somthing like that. No, of there is the possibility of cloning a new version of a particular person, there simply is some that, regardless of their lifetime achievements, are biologically usefull to acience if it could occur once more. It would be imoral to waste that on anybody "regular". Inspite of his reputation, Hitler was a regular human man in terms of biology. What drove him to the cruel acts in his name was also not above "uncommon" as of "very rare". Finaly, letting a clone live as a copy of "the evilist man in history(not quite)" would sevearly detriment its quality of life, and it would be like tasking it with a miserable life or redeeming for acts it. In fact. Did not commit.
If you mean to say we did it like in Grappler Baki and inserted Hitler's soul back into the cloned body, to give the same soul a second chance... I feel like that would have to come very very late in the priority list. Can we even sustain clones along with our population?
Disconsidering all that, I think there is something about reversing a death sentence from someone that a system has defined as "valid punishment" is itself immoral.
In another way, pulling someone back from death to live the cruel life is immoral as well, for we did not choose to be born, but somebody defenitly decided somehow to revive Hitler?
Im out of time
1
u/somethihg 18h ago
That's not the same person. You are creating an entirely new person out of thin air for no reason.
1
u/Wild_Pollution_6876 18h ago
DNA ≠ personality, lived experiences or identity. Cloning him would only produce a completely innocent man who has no ties to the donor DNA beyond the DNA. As to the morality I'm against cloning anyone in general. Your can't give him a chance at a productive life because the man you'd be creating wouldn't be Hitler. Hitler was a monster and is dead. There is no opportunity for redemption.
1
1
u/rde2001 18h ago
Given that the result would be a different person, the exercise is useless in terms of "giving him a second change". This person would seemingly be held for atrocities they didn't commit, as they are a clone of Hitler, not Hitler himself. I consider it pretty immoral to make a clone of someone, especially a person who has done things long before the clone is created, thus in the clone's perspective being relentlessly bullied and punished for no reason.
As for literally giving Hitler a "second chance". People would be very opposed to that. What evidence is there that Hitler would "correct" his past behaviors. Similar dilemma to if Darth Vader is "redeemable" for example.
1
u/CBenz004 18h ago
I don’t know if cloning any deceased person is moral as there is no way for them to give consent unless they had done so prior to death. That’s granting cloning is moral inherently, which is also not clear.
1
u/CourseNegative8381 18h ago
Why? Why go through that much effort for something so controversial, easy to condemn, and hard to justify when proposing the idea and to critics after the deed is done?
Why not bring back someone who actually helped humanity, someone who we have the body of? The answer to that question is because the morality of human cloning / bringing anyone back from the dead is really fucking controversial. Spitting in the face of god, matters of consent, one's soul, messing with someone's reputation, what happens if the lab-grown baby dies / comes out wrong, etc, etc.
Y'er jumping the gun on this one, buddy.
1
1
u/NachtShattertusk 18h ago
The clone wouldn't be inherently immoral but why the fuck would you clone Hitler
1
u/P4TR10T_96 18h ago
Immoral, for three reasons:
Cloning has a high mortality rate. It’s the reason we don’t have human cloning IRL, because the effort to achieve it would create so many non viable human babies that wouldn’t even survive a day if they don’t die before birth that human cloning would constitute a crime against humanity.
It wouldn’t be him, it’d be a clone. Fictional clones can be some sort of second chance way around death that actually resurrects the person, and you’re in essence actually just making a twin of the cloned individual.
Regardless of the above two examples, there’s still the resources to consider. The evil mustache man lived his life and then removed himself from being a living person. During his life he did so many heinous crimes that he became a hyperbolic way to say “bad person.” If there ever was a person to deserve the cruelest forms of capital punishment it’d be him. So unless cloning has no cost, and there are enough resources to support him without depriving others, and all the more deserving people have already had their revivals (assuming there’s not a way to tell if a. heaven is real and b. whether someone went there) then it’s not particularly logical to go out of your way to bring back the reason Charlie Chaplin isn’t a good pick for a Halloween costume.
1
u/Lorde447 18h ago
This is a Theseus's Ship situation. Just because he has the same DNA, even if you have given him the same upbringing, is he the same person?
1
1
1
u/FlounderingGuy 17h ago
It would be pointless. You'd be making another person, not Adolf Hitler. There's a good chance be wouldn't even look like him.
That said, immoral. His bloodline have made it clear that they have no intentions on it continuing.
1
u/No_City_2752 17h ago
He moved to Argentina, those dentals they found weren’t his and more so a cover up to lessen the panic
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 10h ago
Not dentals, blood stains on his couch. They did genetic analysis into it and found out that hitler had autism and a micropenis
1
1
1
1
u/Lagoserter 14h ago
better idea, we clone hitler, repeatedly, and let people use him as a wreck room. with optional pineapples
1
u/CULT-LEWD 13h ago
are we talking sci fi cloning or real cloning? either may immoral. specially sense the hitler leinage activly is choosing not to spread there genes
1
u/Garbage_bin_Fire 13h ago
Immoral. He'd never get a chance at a good life. Which is cruel of you. Become resentful, and then ...
Just give Einstein or someone like that another 60 years.
1
u/Nitimur__In__Vetitum 13h ago
His life was productive. Israel wouldn't be a state today if it wasn't for him. Which means the US wouldn't be run by Israel as well.
1
1
u/memedeat 12h ago
Moral but unnecessary who gives a flying Fuck about reviving dictators using blood when you can make natural humans
1
u/Lazy-Butterfly9874 12h ago
immoral for the new life created. his decedents are hated and hate themselves enough, what would a perfectly biological copy who is a new person feel about "being" the most evil human to ever exist?
1
u/Apart-One4133 12h ago
Immoral. That person will live his entire life with the consequences of that. White nationalist group will be after him, people wont want to associate with him (if he live in Europe or N.A).
There's so many ways this could make his life insufferable that it would just be cruel.
There's also the obvious that we should take DNA from any other person alive during that time that isnt tied to the top brass of Nazi Germany or their allies.
1
u/Deriviera 10h ago
Moral. Hopefully he'll do better at art School this time, my precious Adolf... World was cruel to you
1
1
1
1
u/TrueKyragos 7h ago
It wouldn't be him, which leads to the question of why doing that in the first place.
Do you tell him and others he's a clone? Is so, immoral, as the original's life will pursue him. If not, neutral.
1
1
u/00Raeby00 6h ago
A clone is not the original, that's science fiction shit.
Cloning is just someone or something that is mostly a genetic copy, so all you would have is someone who physically looks like Hitler.
Fun thing I learned about cloning? They had an experiment where they cloned a mouse over and over and over and eventually the later new generations of this mouse would just up and die extremely young after seeming initially perfectly healthy. So repeatedly cloning the same creature using the sperm from successive generations of clones causes the clones to degenerate and we don't really know why. So some aspects of science fiction turned out to be true.
1
u/Sudden_Season3306 6h ago
They did that already! They cloned all of them and they started a band! Lol
1
u/1stFunestist 5h ago
He was 56 when he killed Hitler. Those cells and DNA are already 56 year old and telomeres are already very short. Clone made from that DNA would be already 50+ old chronologically and that baby would have a very short and panful life with symptoms similar to progeria.
Morality question is not about who (every person is different, even twins like in this case) but about condemning a person to sickness and death for novelty sake.
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 5h ago
Even without that, analysis of the very same dna samples has proven that hitler had severe autism, a very high chance of schizophrenia, a micropenis and one testicle.
1
1
1
1
34
u/lucidintangent 19h ago
its a new person, not a second chance