RP

Dear Alex,

I have received your request for aid from me to help you assassinate Hitler. I have pondered over this for quite a while and have come to the following conclusion; I will decline this offer.
The reason as to why I have decided this will be explained below.
Firstly, understanding the view of a Kant, I would not kill Hitler as I would be employing ‘Universalisation'; where logical thinking is required to understand the consequences if this action was widely committed by everyone in the world. The outcome would result in a world of chaos and reduce to absurdity, which in turn refutes itself. For example, if everyone was permitted to steal, this would demolish the concept of personal property and the company itself would go bankrupt.
Reason and logic alone can determine most moral laws; if your proposition does not follow with logical contradictions (does follow from the premises) then it is a sound, moral argument. In the opposite case, where your conclusion does not follow soundly from the premises, you are committing the ‘reductio ad absurdum' fallacy and results in an illogical, immoral end. This action of killing Hitler would result in this reduction to absurdity, therefore I would not. Someone who would agree with me would be a follower of Natural Law. They believe actions are intrinsically right or wrong, and that if it fulfills your telos, then it is deemed moral; and example of Deontological/Teleological Moralism.

A person who would disagree with me would be a Utilitarian. A Utilitarian follows the ‘greatest good for the greatest number' principle. They believe the greatest good is in fact pleasure; they ‘weigh up' the consequences of the action, if you will, and decide which outcome produces the most pleasure for the greatest number. They are Relative Consequentialists.
Killing Hitler would result in several million, innocent Jews' lives being spared, for the death of one being. The death of one clearly outweighs the death of six million. Therefore, a Utilitarian would kill Hitler.
Another person who would disagree with me would be a Situation Ethicist. They follow the ‘greatest good for the greatest number' principle also, but they believe the greatest good is love for your neighbour (agape). This type of love is altruistic, not egoistic, and in each scenario, you must do the most loving thing, just as Jesus died for humanity to save the people.

However, the argument of a Kant and Natural Law could be criticized in the following way:
Kantian Law states that after the notion of Universalisation, the argument is reduced to absurdity and refutes itself. It does not identify what is absurd and what is not. One man's thoughts of absurdity will inevitably differ from that of another. It also contains the slippery slope fallacy.
Natural Law states that actions are intrinsically right or wrong and that actions should fulfill your ‘telos' or duty. It is assumed that we have a telos or duty in the first place.
Utilitarianism states that the action should produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The criticism for this is that we cannot figure out which action produces the better outcome. There will be a multitude of possibilities unexplored. There is no set unit for good/bad produced.
Situation ethicists say that you must do the most loving thing. We do not know for sure what the most loving thing is if we are faced with two scenarios that both produce well.

In conclusion, I will not, myself, kill Hitler as I take a Kant/Natural Law approach in this scenario. However, if the doctrine of double effect is taken into action, I will help you in your quest to take out Hitler, but my interests remain in trying to injure him, not killing him. If Hitler is killed in this task, then the result will not hang on myself, as my intentions were to solitarily injure him.
I hope you understand my decision and wish you all the best.