[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Thomas and Martha? Yes. In a second. Edith Keeler… is a bit trickier, because my world would no longer exist if she survived. With Thomas and Martha, you have to think of all the good they would have done if they lived. Gotham might not need a Batman if they’d been around.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, that Wayne boy was instrumental in saving the entire earth from the Legion of Doom. Gotham needs it’s dark knight.
I say we traumatize the kid.
[QUOTE=ivylass]
If there were any adults hanging around, the guy would have moved on. Maybe to another child…
[/quote]
Exactly my point. The probability that another child would suffer because Adam was saved approaches 100%, in my mind.
And I submit that one or more children would have died anyway because of this perpetrator — and maaaaaybe legislation would have come about, possibly, through some other means, eventually, if enough other children were hurt. But you know 100% that it would come about this time.
In my mind, I’d make that sacrifice: the death of this one child guarantees that changes come about that save other children; while the choice you’re asking me to make is to save one child and hope like hell no other children have to die and the legislation happens anyway?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What future kids are saving by standing around doing nothing?
[/QUOTE]
If you’re asking me “what would have happened if Adam hadn’t been saved,” then the answer is, “nobody knows for sure.”
But if you’re asking me, “if a pedophile and murderer couldn’t kidnap Adam on that specific day, is he now suddenly forever cured?” I’d say definitely not; odds are, he’d find another victim, one with parents perhaps not as motivated as John Walsh.
[QUOTE=Fish]
If you’re asking me “what would have happened if Adam hadn’t been saved,” then the answer is, “nobody knows for sure.”
But if you’re asking me, “if a pedophile and murderer couldn’t kidnap Adam on that specific day, is he now suddenly forever cured?” I’d say definitely not; odds are, he’d find another victim, one with parents perhaps not as motivated as John Walsh.
[/QUOTE]
Who the hell said he’d be cured? One thing’s for sure, you could stop him from killing one kid. Standing around watching doesn’t save any kids. Basically, you’re saying you should never stop a pedophile from snatching a kid because stopping him might cause him to pick some other kid in the future. That’s ridiculous reasoning. Do you mean to say that if you saw someone trying to abduct a child from a Wal-Mart today, you would do nothing?
[QUOTE=Fish]
If you’re asking me “what would have happened if Adam hadn’t been saved,” then the answer is, “nobody knows for sure.”
[/quote]
Sure we do. Adam wasn’t saved. That’s not a hypothetical. We know he was murdered. We don’t have to guess.
I would do whatever I would have to do to stop that psycho from abducting young Walsh.
[QUOTE=sciurophobic]
I’d kidnap Adam first, but let him go unharmed the next day or too. John Walsh is still motivated to protect other children. Everybody wins.
[/QUOTE]
Then while in your custody, the kid trips and falls into a wood-chipper or something, fulfilling his destiny.
Didn’t you want Star Trek? Every time they tried to prevent something, they always ended up playing a pivotal role in it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
One thing’s for sure, you could stop him from killing one kid.
[/quote]
Wrong. Don’t overstate the importance of being there on that one day. All you could be certain of doing (short of murdering him on sight) is to stop him from killing this kid, on this day.
For all we know, the perpetrator cruises that arcade daily. If you were playing guardian angel to Adam on that one day, for a few hours, then odds are very good that the perpetrator would’ve snatched somebody else — recidivism among child molesters is extremely high. What would you have you gained by exchanging Adam’s death for another kid’s? What would you have lost?
Oh bullshit. If the reasoning is ridiculous, it’s your own fault, because I never said anything of the kind.
What I am saying is, in this particular case you have a 100% certainty: this child will die, and in exchange, legislation will come to pass to protect other children and to unite national law enforcement agencies.
Save this child on this day and there’s a dismal chance of that legislation ever happening any time soon, at the cost of a near-100% certainty that some other child will die — have you ever seen security video of child molesters on the prowl? They’re damned persistent and they DO NOT STOP prowling for kids and they KEEP COMING BACK.
I’ll take the 100% certainty of the protective legislation, at the cost of 100% certainty of that child’s death, thanks. If you’d rather, you can save this one kid — and read in the newspaper the following day about how the child molester got someone else instead, and you with nothing to show for it.
Am I the only person thinking of using this opportunity to stop Ottis Toole?
Wait, John Walsh pushed through “Three Strikes”? OK, that seals it. I would save the kid. Stinking sports-based lawmaking, grumble grumble.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Am I the only person thinking of using this opportunity to stop Ottis Toole?
[/QUOTE]
Am I the only one thinking that Ottis Toole “confessed” to over 200 crimes in which he did not participate, and that there has never been enough evidence to link him to Adam Walsh’s abduction and murder?
[QUOTE=Fish]
All you could be certain of doing (short of murdering him on sight) is to stop him from killing this kid, on this day.
[/QUOTE]
That’s enough for me. I may not be able to save all the children in the world, but if the one in front of me is in trouble, I help them.
You could not return to your own time as your own time would be unutterably altered by the fact that you changed it. You could return to the future, but your life wouldn’t be the same, or you could return to your own actual time and the saving of the kid would not have happened in your timeline.
[QUOTE=mswas]
You could not return to your own time as your own time would be unutterably altered by the fact that you changed it. You could return to the future, but your life wouldn’t be the same, or you could return to your own actual time and the saving of the kid would not have happened in your timeline.
[/QUOTE]
I think I’d be okay staying in 1981 after saving Adam Walsh. I’d get a job as a COBOL programmer and give my parents and younger self investment and health-care advice.
And build my personal computer empire, of course.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Thomas and Martha? Yes. In a second. Edith Keeler… is a bit trickier, because my world would no longer exist if she survived. With Thomas and Martha, you have to think of all the good they would have done if they lived. Gotham might not need a Batman if they’d been around.
[/QUOTE]
I’d argue that Gotham would be better off without Batman if the thread weren’t already nearly as silly as my typical IMHO thread.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Am I the only person thinking of using this opportunity to stop Ottis Toole?
[/QUOTE]
nope. one can follow toole after thwarting his attempt at master walsh. or call in a tip to the police. or make enough of a fuss that toole is held by security at the mall and arrested.
unless the time traveling devise “poofs” you away at the moment you thwart toole.
[QUOTE=rocking chair]
unless the time traveling devise “poofs” you away at the moment you thwart toole.
[/QUOTE]
No, what happens next is that Doc appears and tells you we have to go into the future to deal with Adam Walsh’s children.
Luckily, where you’re going, you don’t need roads.
First I hope we can count on the provision that you can either interrupt the Adam Walsh killing without any other effect, or else have no effect at all, so there’s no butterfly effect to worry about. I think above all else that, without knowing this, I would opt to have as little effect as possible, including letting Adam go. I’d hate to come back to a crispy nuclear aftermath.
Second, I would like to know whether the “America’s Most Wanted” program has saved multiple lives. Appearances are that it did, because it raised awareness, and because it helped several laws get passed, and because it helped put 1000 or so very bad people away. There are all kinds of ways, though, that this might not really be true. Especially, it’s hard to say what else like it would have gotten going if it were not there. If I knew I was going to go time traveling, I would try to get to the bottom of this question first. If, as the OP suggests, I couldn’t do this homework first, I would suppose that the program did save multiple lives.
So, the only situation in which I would save Adam Walsh is if I could do the homework and find out that the program really accomplished little despite appearances, and also have assurances that there’s no butterfly effect to worry about and the only change I was making was to keep Adam alive and eliminate the heartbreaking motivation John Walsh had to make the show work.
I can’t see trading away multiple lives to save Adam, even if we don’t know the identities of the lives we save.
Whether or not John Walsh enjoys fame and fortune don’t seem to me relevant in any way, and for that matter as far as I know he’s just a man who managed to turn a horrible anguishing nightmare into a work of good for the world. I don’t know that much about him, but on the basis of what I do know I can only admire him and wish him well.
By the way, several posts back, Fish seems to make good sense - a tip of the hat!
I think the only moral choice is to try to save the child. If you didn’t, to me that is the same as seeing a child being forcefully abducted today, and doing nothing.
The time/space continuum, the butterfly effect, causality, or what have you may strive to trip you up, but that has nothing to do with your choice of what you do.
You have to try.
I saw a boy drown on a beach when I was thirteen. I watched while I flew a kite. A few people tried to save him, but most people including myself just stood and watched. I felt loathing for those people (including myself,) who stood and watched.
It’s like those people from the Titanic in the half-filled lifeboats that didn’t go back for the people crying for help in the water. I don’t know why we, as a group, don’t help each other.
I would want somebody to help my family if they were in severe distress. Part of the social contract, in my opinion, means that you have to be willing to do the same. More, you have to be prepared and capable to whatever extent you can.
So, I’ve told myself that if I hear somebody crying for help or see somebody in distress, I’m not going to stand and watch. I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve had to put myself at risk (like running into a burning building, or interrupting a rapist,) so I don’t know if I would have the guts to follow through on my conviction. I hope I do. I hope I never find out.
I think you have to try. I think it’s the only moral thing. I can’t hold much respect for someone who would sit idle while a child was decapitated, even if they believed their failure was preordained. You have to try.
On another note, if you don’t try and at least tell the police, you have knowledge of the incident that may make you an accessory before the fact.
It seems to me that some people are missing the point of the OP in that the dilemma lies in whether you think the work that John Walsh did is worth sacrificing his kid for. I’m not sure it isn’t. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that if Adam Walsh was saved, some other parent would then lose his child and do the same things that John Walsh would go on to do. Because children had been getting abducted and killed long before that, and no one had done as much as he did up until that point.
Without this consideration, I think everyone would agree you should try to save the child. And of course John Walsh would have chosen to save his child, I don’t think there’s any real question about that.