Moral/Legal Affairs and Time Travel

[Lagmonster]

Assume that you have the ability to travel back and forth in time in leaps of no more than 72 hours. Assume also, for the purposes of this argument, that physics be damned and when you make changes, there are no 'spin off' universes - you're changing the actual events along the timeline of this universe.

You're walking down the street, when a drunk driver flies by and slams into a carriage containing a baby being pushed by a young woman. Both the driver and the baby are killed. The distraught mother, horrified, pleads with you to use your powers to go back in time a few hours and do something about this. Are you morally obligated to help? And if so, to what extent? Are you to go as far back as to stop the driver from getting in his car (you can assume, although it isn't 100% guaranteed, that the driver will still die in the crash if you do nothing), or do you just save the baby? Or alternatively, do you maintain that it is wrong to use time travel as a means to prevent death?

Edit: Changed title to reflect changes in thread direction.

[Anguirus]

I'd go back and pay for the driver to take a cab home.

[Lord Woodlouse]

You're morally obligated to do what you can. Same as all conditions in life.

I can't see why it would be wrong to use time travel unless you know doing so will harm others as a result. While it is true that you can have unforseen consequences, the same applies to all of our lives every minute of the day.

[King Kong]

I think that in cases of individuals having these sort of near godlike powers, their autonomy as individuals should ideally be forfeited for the benefit of the rest of the world. Anyone in possession of these powers has a moral obligation to devote their lives to helping others, because even the smallest beneficial actions has such large consequences that it would be enormously selfish not to act.

In this particular case, I would stop the drunk driver from getting in his car. Not only does it save both lives, but it is the easiest and safest way to make sure that the accident doesn't happen. Trying to save only the baby could potentially injure myself or the mother, or I may fail, so it would be best to stop the drunk driver.

In this particular scenario, my own personal safety should be a primary concern, because I am still human and easily killed, and if I am killed, then the world has lost its time-travelling savior. I imagine that someone in this particular situation would spend most of their time warning people about future events, then leaving it to the people to prevent these events.

I can see nothing wrong in this scenario about preventing death, as the one and only timeline is irrevocably altered: there are no alternate universes where the baby still dies, or everybody dies, and the only timeline can still be changed if my action results in a more horrible situation.

[Lagmonster]

You're morally obligated to do what you can. Same as all conditions in life.

I can't see why it would be wrong to use time travel unless you know doing so will harm others as a result. While it is true that you can have unforseen consequences, the same applies to all of our lives every minute of the day.

So you're obligated to save the driver and the baby, then, despite the fact that it's arguably much easier to push a baby out of the way of a speeding car, rather than hunt for hours trying to track down where the drunkard was when he got into his car, then try to negotiate him out of his escapade?

Would it make any difference if you found that the man driving the car had actually been trying to commit suicide, and had loaded up on sleeping pills and booze before going for his drive?

[Lord Woodlouse]

You're morally obligated to do what you can. Same as all conditions in life.

I can't see why it would be wrong to use time travel unless you know doing so will harm others as a result. While it is true that you can have unforseen consequences, the same applies to all of our lives every minute of the day.

So you're obligated to save the driver and the baby, then, despite the fact that it's arguably much easier to push a baby out of the way of a speeding car, rather than hunt for hours trying to track down where the drunkard was when he got into his car, then try to negotiate him out of his escapade?

Would it make any difference if you found that the man driving the car had actually been trying to commit suicide, and had loaded up on sleeping pills and booze before going for his drive?

Sure, this is a life we're talking about. Wandering around a bit looking for him is a minor inconvenience.

The same applies if he's committing suicide. I'd try to prevent someone killing themselves in day to day life, this would not be an exception.

[Lagmonster]

Sure, this is a life we're talking about. Wandering around a bit looking for him is a minor inconvenience.

The same applies if he's committing suicide. I'd try to prevent someone killing themselves in day to day life, this would not be an exception.

I was considering something else entirely; the fact that there would be no repercussions for the driver, nor would there be any way to stop him from doing it again.

One of the things about drunk drivers, let alone people who are willing to potentially kill others while killing themselves, is that if they try it once, they'll try it again. If you erase the drunk ever getting into his car, there is no way to prosecute him for the crime, no way to even convince anyone that he's a threat, since in effect no crime would have been committed. Thus you run the risk of him re-offending. And it would be hard to let him get into the car and *start* driving drunk, then run him off the road or something.

Personally, I'd save the baby but leave the drunkard to his fate, whether he was suicidal or not. I don't think it's a totally transparent moral issue, given simply that reversing time throws a lot of our ideas about justice, rehabilitation and personal accountability on its ear. For example, you could shoot someone you hate, knowing that the act will be erased by the time travelling saviour (TTS) and you'll effectively be absolved of the crime. You'd be standing there with the time traveler in front of you barring your path to the crime, and you'd know you were just stopped from doing what you planned to do, giving you the satisfaction of knowing that you probably did murder the fellow before the TTS intervened and changed history.

[King Kong]

I think that if you assume the timeline outlined in the OP, then an action prevented by the TTS would still be considered a crime, since there is only one timeline and no offshoots where someone might have done something different. The only reason that the action was prevented was because of the TTS, making the future criminal guilty.

Of course this opens up a hornet's nest of ethical and judicial questions, but I think that this system would be thoroughly entrenched in our society after we had gotten used to a TTS.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Sure, this is a life we're talking about. Wandering around a bit looking for him is a minor inconvenience.

The same applies if he's committing suicide. I'd try to prevent someone killing themselves in day to day life, this would not be an exception.

I was considering something else entirely; the fact that there would be no repercussions for the driver, nor would there be any way to stop him from doing it again.

One of the things about drunk drivers, let alone people who are willing to potentially kill others while killing themselves, is that if they try it once, they'll try it again. If you erase the drunk ever getting into his car, there is no way to prosecute him for the crime, no way to even convince anyone that he's a threat, since in effect no crime would have been committed. Thus you run the risk of him re-offending. And it would be hard to let him get into the car and *start* driving drunk, then run him off the road or something.

Personally, I'd save the baby but leave the drunkard to his fate, whether he was suicidal or not. I don't think it's a totally transparent moral issue, given simply that reversing time throws a lot of our ideas about justice, rehabilitation and personal accountability on its ear. For example, you could shoot someone you hate, knowing that the act will be erased by the time travelling saviour (TTS) and you'll effectively be absolved of the crime. You'd be standing there with the time traveler in front of you barring your path to the crime, and you'd know you were just stopped from doing what you planned to do, giving you the satisfaction of knowing that you probably did murder the fellow before the TTS intervened and changed history.

People also make mistakes, sometimes. Especially when drunk. Drink driving is a terrible crime, but I don't think that means every person who ever does it needs it rubbed in their faces with maximum force.

I'd maybe shout at the guy, tell him you can't drink and drive. I might even report him to the police and get the guy arrested and his licence revoked. But I'd not let the guy get into a car while drunk just because I know he's not going to kill anyone else.

[Lagmonster]

Normally, considerations of whether or not you can prosecute the guy later DO take a backseat to saving lives - without time travel powers you would still prevent a guy from committing a crime rather than let him do it just to make sure he gets punished for it. But in this case you'd have to decide that altering time is actually the same thing as intervening when the crime is about to occur.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Normally, considerations of whether or not you can prosecute the guy later DO take a backseat to saving lives - without time travel powers you would still prevent a guy from committing a crime rather than let him do it just to make sure he gets punished for it. But in this case you'd have to decide that altering time is actually the same thing as intervening when the crime is about to occur.

Naturally. It adds a whole new dimension, and it means you have more obligations to do what's right when you can. But at the end of the day I'd try and stop anyone who is drunk from getting in a car and driving if I *know* that's what they're doing.

As I say, you have an obligation to do what you can. Sadly that might not always be enough, as is frequently the case without time travel.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Assume that you have the ability to travel back and forth in time in leaps of no more than 72 hours. Assume also, for the purposes of this argument, that physics be damned and when you make changes, there are no 'spin off' universes - you're changing the actual events along the timeline of this universe.

I wouldn't use that version of time travel for anything short of saving civilization. When you go back, you annihilate the time you came from; you are killing everyone. Disregarding time travel word games about how they never really existed, only a situation where the majority of people are dead or better off dead would justify that kind of time travel.

[Xon]

You're morally obligated to do what you can. Same as all conditions in life.

So I'm going to be morally obligated to win as much money is humanly possible to fund myself?

Cos being able to go back in time is onething, having the montary and political abilities to effect changes is another

[Lord Woodlouse]

You're morally obligated to do what you can. Same as all conditions in life.

So I'm going to be morally obligated to win as much money is humanly possible to fund myself?

Cos being able to go back in time is onething, having the montary and political abilities to effect changes is another

That's taking it further than it needs to go. Doing what you can applies to things that are, essentially, right in front of you. When you know something is going wrong, and when you know you have the ready ability to do something about it.

It does not mean we have an obligation to become superhero crime fighters, or mysteriously become fantastic businessmen to fight evil.

[Lagmonster]

I think that if you assume the timeline outlined in the OP, then an action prevented by the TTS would still be considered a crime, since there is only one timeline and no offshoots where someone might have done something different. The only reason that the action was prevented was because of the TTS, making the future criminal guilty.

Of course this opens up a hornet's nest of ethical and judicial questions, but I think that this system would be thoroughly entrenched in our society after we had gotten used to a TTS.

Actually, this is a side avenue I think might be fun to explore.

Let's say that you're just about to go out drinking, and the TTS and some cops show up at your door, at which point you're placed under arrest for being about to get drunk and drive, causing a crash which results in your own death, plus the death of an innocent bystander. How would you argue for that? There's no evidence that you died - since you aren't dead. There's no evidence that you killed anyone. There's no evidence that you even would have driven drunk, because the events literally don't exist. My grounding in criminal law is nil, but I can't fathom how you would actually prosecute in that case.

[King Kong]

Let's say that you're just about to go out drinking, and the TTS and some cops show up at your door, at which point you're placed under arrest for being about to get drunk and drive, causing a crash which results in your own death, plus the death of an innocent bystander. How would you argue for that? There's no evidence that you died - since you aren't dead. There's no evidence that you killed anyone. There's no evidence that you even would have driven drunk, because the events literally don't exist. My grounding in criminal law is nil, but I can't fathom how you would actually prosecute in that case.

If a TTS were incorporated into the criminal justice system, I imagine that there would have to be some sort of 'future authorization method' where the TTS would bring back some proof that the action prevented would have occurred (thus confirming that the criminal's future exists).

A videotape of the accident (if the TTS was not at the scene, he always go back and ensure that he is present), physical evidence from the scene of the crime, or even the drunk driver's own dead body might be enough to convince the past authorities that the crime will be committed. A 'warrant' signed by the local judge might also be brought back to himself from a few hours in his future, where he could review it and authorize the arrest of the future criminal. In cases of premeditated murder, the warrant might only allow for investigators to search the suspect's home and belongings, confirming that the criminal had been planning the exact same crime that will be committed. This might create some interesting situations if the past judge refuses to allow an arrest for whatever reason. Who would have the ultimate authority? Past or future judge?

Of course, if by act of thread you disallow anything other than the TTS to travel back, prepare yourself for a shitload of legal trouble.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I remember an episode of Sliders where they went to a world where psychic powers were real. They had police who would forsee a crime, and then they would drop by your house and say "We foresaw you committing this crime. If that crime is committed, know that you'll be under surveilance and won't get away with it." They weren't locking people up for things they might do, but telling them not to do it.

[Beowulf]

I think that if you assume the timeline outlined in the OP, then an action prevented by the TTS would still be considered a crime, since there is only one timeline and no offshoots where someone might have done something different. The only reason that the action was prevented was because of the TTS, making the future criminal guilty.

Of course this opens up a hornet's nest of ethical and judicial questions, but I think that this system would be thoroughly entrenched in our society after we had gotten used to a TTS.

Actually, this is a side avenue I think might be fun to explore.

Let's say that you're just about to go out drinking, and the TTS and some cops show up at your door, at which point you're placed under arrest for being about to get drunk and drive, causing a crash which results in your own death, plus the death of an innocent bystander. How would you argue for that? There's no evidence that you died - since you aren't dead. There's no evidence that you killed anyone. There's no evidence that you even would have driven drunk, because the events literally don't exist. My grounding in criminal law is nil, but I can't fathom how you would actually prosecute in that case.

Reminds me of Minority Report. It doesn't matter if the information is received from a TTS, or a bunch of psychics who see the future.

[B5B7]

I wouldn't take any action in regard to this case.
Instead I would have a setup where I am given regularly a huge printout or computer disk by a special org, and I would then go back 72 hours, and hand this report to the org for its agents to do the "correcting".

There is no way I would have the time, resources or desire to stop all kinds of bad events.