KarenJoanna Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 So, I am a huge Doctor Who fan, and I read that the doctor gives a winning lottery ticket to one of his companions he got from traveling into the future as he is a time traveler. I know time travel is not real (obviously), however, IF anyone traveled into the future and went back to the present to win the lottery would it be morally wrong or is it acceptable? I am just very curious because it's not like being psychic, where it would be a sin. I know it's a stupid question, but I like thinking too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Hm. Good question. I guess it boils down to whether or not insider information would be immoral in the context of a lottery. In a card game it would be cheating, and a lottery is similar to a card game and other forms of gambling, but is it similar enough? On the other hand, in this case our I side information is gained through licit, albeit unusual means. There is no deceit involved. Just an inherent and perfect advantage. I will have to think more. I am inclined to think it might be acceptable, but I am not totally confident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I know time travel is not real (obviously) Time traveling into the future is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I think what would come into play would be what conduct is one morally obligatted to follow when traveling through time? Furthermore is time travel itself morally permissible? Edited March 25, 2015 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I think what would come into play would be what conduct is one morally obligatted to follow when traveling through time? Furthermore is time travel itself morally permissible? I should think it would be as long as it was not through occult means. No more than it is immoral for humans to fly or prolong life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 My concern is that it would change history because the person who had won the lottery before the companion showed up from the future would not be winning it now, and what a chain reaction that would have on future outcomes. But then, if the companion had already gone into the past and been the one who had won the lottery before she traveled to the past to win it, well, then we would just have a time paradox and the universe would cease to exist because how could she have won it in the past before she was in the past? I love time travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnatiusofLoyola Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Hmmm, interesting topic. I've never given much thought to Time Travel (never watched Dr. Who ). I'll have to mull this over. In addition to Dr. Who, I will need to consult that other "most excellent" resource on Time Travel--"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." I re-watched that movie recently, and enjoyed it more than I expected, perhaps because it was fun to see a very young Keeanu Reeves. The lottery itself is a very controversial topic among some people, because it is felt to exploit people with lower incomes, not to mention that the odds are truly horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I don't think morality applies in a world where time travel is possible. If actions can be revisited and affected, then how can there be any kind of moral act. The value of the present is obliterated, because we exist in different times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I don't think morality applies in a world where time travel is possible. If actions can be revisited and affected, then how can there be any kind of moral act. The value of the present is obliterated, because we exist in different times. That would only apply when and if the events that lead to an evil act were changed in such a way that the evil act was not acted upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 That would only apply when and if the events that lead to an evil act were changed in such a way that the evil act was not acted upon. I don't think so. A world where acts had no actual value or reality, but were just accidents of time, seems to me a world of illusion, nothing more. Morality would have no meaning. It would be a formless world. To grow old and die would just be a shapeshifting form that could be undone or revisited. The whole basis of moral life is that acts are real and finite, they have consequences. To be "redeemed" from some past act assumes that the act has occured, cannot be undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I don't think so. A world where acts had no actual value or reality, but were just accidents of time, seems to me a world of illusion, nothing more. Morality would have no meaning. It would be a formless world. To grow old and die would just be a shapeshifting form that could be undone or revisited. The whole basis of moral life is that acts are real and finite, they have consequences. To be "redeemed" from some past act assumes that the act has occured, cannot be undone. Morality is based on revelation from God. So the foundation of what is right and what is wrong exist outside of space-time and would not be effected by changes in the timeline. If an event or action could possibly be changed it does not mean morality is made null and void. It would merely change the moral outcome of an action or event. Wibbly wobbly timey wimey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Morality is based on revelation from God. So the foundation of what is right and what is wrong exist outside of space-time and would not be effected by changes in the timeline. If an event or action could possibly be changed it does not mean morality is made null and void. It would merely change the moral outcome of an action or event. Wibbly wobbly timey wimey. There is no morality outside of space or time (the Christian God is not moral, he transcends any moral categories). Morality is simply regulation of human decisions and behavior. Even if it comes from revelation, it is still based on the a world where human behavior is real, an act of the will that affects who we are and what we are. If you can commit a sin, which has an effect on your immortal soul, but then somehow go back in time to some other point where you soul has not been affected...the basis of morality ceases to exist, your soul exists in one time before a particular sin, and in another time after it. If someone were to change your sin, who's to say someone in another time is not changing that person changing your sin? Since time has no reality, neither do our acts. If you commit adultery, your soul cannot exist in another time "not guilty" of adultery. It makes no sense to speak of morality in a time-traveling world, the world is then unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 There is no morality outside of space or time (the Christian God is not moral, he transcends any moral categories). Morality is simply regulation of human decisions and behavior. Even if it comes from revelation, it is still based on the a world where human behavior is real, an act of the will that affects who we are and what we are. If you can commit a sin, which has an effect on your immortal soul, but then somehow go back in time to some other point where you soul has not been affected...the basis of morality ceases to exist, your soul exists in one time before a particular sin, and in another time after it. If someone were to change your sin, who's to say someone in another time is not changing that person changing your sin? Since time has no reality, neither do our acts. If you commit adultery, your soul cannot exist in another time "not guilty" of adultery. It makes no sense to speak of morality in a time-traveling world, the world is then unreal. The one whom says what is moral and what is not moral is outside time and space. Therefore effects in the timeline would not void morality, only change the morality of the outcome of an event or action. A man who is unfaithful to his wife in one timeline, is not guilty of adultery if he is faithful to his wife in another timeline. That would be true, but it would still be moral for him to be faithful to his wife in the changed timeline. His faithfulness in the changed timeline would not be null. Time would still have reality and it would still exist, because it could still be measured and persons, places, events and actions would still exist within it. Just because it could have the potential to change wouldn't make it void of reality. Having the ability to change something that exist doesn't make nonexistent. We can change the shape of a piece of paper, by folding it but the paper however changed still exist. Even if space time could be folded allowing one to step from one time to another it would also still exist. Anyway, I don't agree and that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 The paper only exists with a past behind it. You can fold it, and it then becomes a paper that was not folded, and now is folded. You cannot go back in time and turn it into a paper that has never been folded (else it would cease to be that piece of paper, and would just be a generic idea of paper that can be anything. If time-travel is possible, then there is no such thing as a "time-line," that assumes that there is a real past, a present, and a future. If a man can change his past acts, then any idea of sin or redemption is irrelevant, because redemption and sin assume a real world where the past cannot be undone, and the future only exists in the present decision, and hence action must be taken with that real past as its starting point. The Christian God is not "outside" time and space, or inside it, he transcends it, there is no outside or inside, he is utterly transcendent, but his creation does exist in time and space and form, they are not ideas that exist across time, they only exist in the present, and the present comes to be by real acts which cannot be undone. I would not want to exist in a world of time travel...what's the point? The whole point of being human is that I am what and who I am, and whatever that is takes on meaning by the mere fact that reality has produced this, whether my own acts or those of others or of nature. I cannot be other than what I am, and I cannot be what I have been or what I will be except in imagination or in present decision. If time travel were possible then you could go back to when there were no humans, in which case you exist as a human in a world where humans don't even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now