Imagine if time travel was possible and you had the opportunity to prevent terrible tragedies by eliminating a key figure in history. The classic philosophical dilemma emerges: is it ever justifiable to kill someone in the past to save the future? Many feel instinctively drawn to the idea—surely one death is a small price to pay if millions could be saved.
But from a philosophical perspective, this temptation must be resisted. Let’s explore why, using ethical theories and philosophical arguments to support our stance.
The Ethical Illusion: Ends vs. Means
One of the strongest philosophical arguments against justifying murder—even with good intentions—is found in Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. According to Kant, ethical behavior must be universally applicable. This means that one cannot make an exception for murder simply because the outcome seems favorable.
Kant writes in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
If we universalize the action of killing to alter history, morality collapses. Imagine a world where everyone justifies lethal actions based on perceived future benefits—it would lead to endless cycles of violence and chaos, clearly undermining social stability and ethical coherence.
Available Now
A vow of silence. A mission across centuries. One assassin holds the fate of humanity in his hands.
Adam never chose to be silent; the Phylax demanded it. Trained from childhood as a time-traveling enforcer, he slips through centuries to eliminate those who threaten the future. His latest mission: assassinate Emperor Qin Shi Huang before a ruthless plot ultimately destroys humankind.
Grab your copy of The Silent Guardian today to embark on a time-travel adventure unlike any other.
The Problem of Moral Certainty
Another powerful argument against the justification of killing someone in the past comes from philosopher Thomas Nagel. In his essay “War and Massacre”, Nagel asserts that the morality of an action cannot solely be judged by outcomes because humans have limited knowledge of the consequences:
“The difficulty is that in making moral judgments we cannot assume a certainty about consequences.”
If we cannot be absolutely certain of the consequences, how could we morally justify something as irreversible as murder? Killing based on uncertain predictions sets a troubling ethical precedent.
Consequentialism’s Trap: Predicting the Unpredictable
Those who argue for such an action might appeal to consequentialist logic—“the greatest good for the greatest number.” However, consequentialist theories like Utilitarianism, as famously proposed by John Stuart Mill, present deep issues in time travel scenarios.
Philosopher David Lewis discusses this issue in “The Paradoxes of Time Travel” (1976), emphasizing that predicting the complex web of historical causality is impossible:
“The worlds accessible by time travel would be worlds of causal loops and contradictions—situations that may invalidate our utilitarian calculus.”
The risk of unintended, perhaps disastrous consequences undermines any potential justification of such an extreme act.
The Value of Human Autonomy
Additionally, philosopher Robert Nozick emphasizes individual rights and autonomy in his seminal work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick argues forcefully against violating an individual’s rights, regardless of potential future benefits:
“Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).”
Killing someone in the past removes their autonomy and fundamental human rights in a way that is irrevocable and deeply unethical. Such an act denies the intrinsic value of human life.
Lessons from Fiction: The Silent Guardian
The ethical challenges explored here are vividly illustrated in fiction, like in The Silent Guardian. In the novel, the protagonist faces situations where violence in the past might avert catastrophe—but the narrative always returns to the inherent moral dangers and emotional costs involved.
It reinforces the lesson that morality cannot bend simply because our intentions are noble. The philosophical truth remains: the ends do not justify the means.
Final Thoughts: Why It’s Never Justifiable
So, returning to our original question—is it ever justifiable to kill someone in the past to save the future?
Philosophically, ethically, and morally, the answer must be a resolute no. Kant’s imperative, Nagel’s argument on uncertainty, Lewis’s analysis of paradox, and Nozick’s insistence on rights all provide powerful reasons against the temptation of justified murder, no matter how noble the goal may seem.
When morality is compromised, the very future we hope to protect becomes tainted by our unethical actions. True ethical behavior demands that we find solutions that do not destroy the values we seek to uphold.