I say it's not murder. Otherwise, by NOT going in the past, you're commiting murder against the one who ends up being born instead if you do go in the past.
This person hasn't existed yet. Anything you do that changes the future isn't killing them, it's preventing them from being born, which is quite different. Murder is taking life from someone alive, with side effects (people who loved them are sad, etc), here you remove the side effects (nobody's mourning people who never existed to begin with) and you're not taking a life.
Actually, since he won't be born, he can't die. You might have been committing murder against the one who WILL be born, since as a result they will die at some point, at that will be your fault.
EDIT: I was being facetious, by the way, unless you want to charge every bio parent ever with murder. Regardless, I thinkif preventing someone from being born is murder, then every woman who produces an egg and doesn't have sex as much as she can to fertilize it is commiting murder, since a fertilized egg would have resulted in a person.
Obviously, that's not true. I don't think it's worse just because you knew that person could have existed. It's still just one possibility out of thousands (probably way more than that, really), just because it's the one you're aware of doesn't give it any precendence. Just going back in time is going to change things and cause people not to be born, is it better because it's people that you didn't know?
@LuigiHann
If you're thinking in fourth dimensions and if time machines would be possible you can be assured that this would be a murder like case, maybe they come up with some other spiffy name but it would be rated the same way because it ereasures that person which already existed from the future and again it doesn't matter how you remove/murder him, the only fact that matters is that you've removed him.
Secondly mankind definately would be very much interested that the present/future stays the way it was and will forbid time machines because otherwise it will lead into complete chaos which will lead to degeneration and most probably the extinction of the human race, because humans are just humans. Some will go back in time to alter things for their advantages, some will just like to life in another time or trying to prevent the death of their husband, others will leave into the future because they don't want to deal with the current problems and are hoping/curious for better times in the future, and so one, mankind would be lost in time, loosing the motivation and ability to evolve. This might also decrease the humans living at the same place and time to a degree where the genetic material isn't sufficient anymore, then you have to go back in time again hijack people, and so on and on and on.
I could imagine that organisations or nations will have the desire for secret projects in which they try to get information, prevent crime or alter the future for their advantage but then again the others sides will try the same and it come down trying to prevent them from doing so. At some point nations, like in the cold war, would at least officially agree on not using the technology.
If you're taking this serious, you could write pages about this subject. Only one person quietly doing it might sound romantic, such a technology beeing available to the masses would lead to the most serious problem we've ever faced.
Comments
This person hasn't existed yet. Anything you do that changes the future isn't killing them, it's preventing them from being born, which is quite different. Murder is taking life from someone alive, with side effects (people who loved them are sad, etc), here you remove the side effects (nobody's mourning people who never existed to begin with) and you're not taking a life.
Actually, since he won't be born, he can't die. You might have been committing murder against the one who WILL be born, since as a result they will die at some point, at that will be your fault.
EDIT: I was being facetious, by the way, unless you want to charge every bio parent ever with murder. Regardless, I thinkif preventing someone from being born is murder, then every woman who produces an egg and doesn't have sex as much as she can to fertilize it is commiting murder, since a fertilized egg would have resulted in a person.
Obviously, that's not true. I don't think it's worse just because you knew that person could have existed. It's still just one possibility out of thousands (probably way more than that, really), just because it's the one you're aware of doesn't give it any precendence. Just going back in time is going to change things and cause people not to be born, is it better because it's people that you didn't know?
If you're thinking in fourth dimensions and if time machines would be possible you can be assured that this would be a murder like case, maybe they come up with some other spiffy name but it would be rated the same way because it ereasures that person which already existed from the future and again it doesn't matter how you remove/murder him, the only fact that matters is that you've removed him.
Secondly mankind definately would be very much interested that the present/future stays the way it was and will forbid time machines because otherwise it will lead into complete chaos which will lead to degeneration and most probably the extinction of the human race, because humans are just humans. Some will go back in time to alter things for their advantages, some will just like to life in another time or trying to prevent the death of their husband, others will leave into the future because they don't want to deal with the current problems and are hoping/curious for better times in the future, and so one, mankind would be lost in time, loosing the motivation and ability to evolve. This might also decrease the humans living at the same place and time to a degree where the genetic material isn't sufficient anymore, then you have to go back in time again hijack people, and so on and on and on.
I could imagine that organisations or nations will have the desire for secret projects in which they try to get information, prevent crime or alter the future for their advantage but then again the others sides will try the same and it come down trying to prevent them from doing so. At some point nations, like in the cold war, would at least officially agree on not using the technology.
If you're taking this serious, you could write pages about this subject. Only one person quietly doing it might sound romantic, such a technology beeing available to the masses would lead to the most serious problem we've ever faced.