Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[GePap]

Oh, one minor tidbit: murder means the malicious killing of someone with rights. Not all killing is muder (hence manslaughter and other notions, like, for example, when a soldier another soldeir he is not a murderer).

One example where killing one is justified to save 100: the one is a soldier of the opposing side, and he may (or may not) be able to kill 100 fellow of your side. Killing that one soldier (whether he was going to actually kill those people or not) would never be considered murder.

So this whole 1 or 100 discussion is far mroe complex than it is being made out to be.

PS: ran is still wrong.

[mindseye]

But you can be sure that given the situation then, such violence was very likely.

No, you cannot be "sure".

You are still maintaining that widespread violence was the only possible alternative to opening fire on the crowds. Can you truly not conceive of other alternatives?

False Dilemma!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Dashi


But in the vaccine scenario, you would agree that killing that one person is moral?

The right choice: Yes. Moral: No. I wouldn't do it. But that's me.

[mindseye]

Re: the vaccine scenario, why not ask for a volunteer from the 100?

Oh, sorry, we are only limited to two outcomes, right?

[ranskaldan]

DF: That's precisely what happens in the vaccine scenario - two immoral choices.

mindseye:

Originally posted by mindseye

- I was referring to the effects that continued visible street demonstrations would bring.

So what's your point? Who says that the demonstrations had to continue? That's just your conjecture. Isn't that another false dilemma (either use military force, or the demonstrations will continue, inevitably leading to something thousands of times worse)? (looks like some Slippery Slope as well ...)

The demonstrations had been growing because the government refused to even open a dialog. The students were only asking for a dialog, they were not asking for revolution, dissolution of the gov't, or the overthrow of the Partry. Quite to the contray, they often went out of their way to make sure the leaders knew they were patriotic.

Had the leaders given them some sort of forum, even a sham forum set for some time later, it could've defused the volatile situation and ended the demonstrations, hunger strikes, etc. The growing unrest was the result of the govt's unwillingness to even consider talking -- not the student agitation!

Are you saying there were absolutely no other possible courses of action - short of firing on crowds - that could've been tried first? Why not try opening a dialog (or some other course of action), and if that didn't work, then opening fire? Why jump straight to gunfire?

Ranskaldan, I have to admit I'm amazed to see you defending the massacre!

The students' idealism went beyond merely "dialog". From the outset, they were going for "democracy", the Western kind. Do you think that "dialog" would have stopped the students' demands right there and then, that they would have dropped all complaints and went home? And what does the students' patriotism have to do with this? They were there because of their patriotism in the first place.

As for defending the massacre - that is a more fundamental moral question that is being discussed with DF right now.

BTW, you misunderstood the vaccine thing. There's only the one person, not among the one hundred, who can save them.

[David Floyd]

DF: That's precisely what happens in the vaccine scenario - two immoral choices.

Wrong. Natural death is amoral, not immoral.

Secondly, there's another choice - getting a volunteer. Out of a hundred people, that wouldn't be tough. I'd volunteer, and I'm sure you would too. If you want to delve deeper into fantasy land and argue that 0 out of 100 people would be rational-thinking enough to volunteer, then this discussion is pointless - it's not gonna happen.

[ranskaldan]

Seems like you've misunderstood the thing from the outset. There's only one specific person who can save the 100.

Preventable natural death is immoral - for the person who can prevent it.

[GePap]

Then tell him, and let him decide whether he will sacrifice himself for them.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
Then tell him, and let him decide whether he will sacrifice himself for them.

And when he says no? You will allow the 100 people to die. Great.

[David Floyd]

Seems like you've misunderstood the thing from the outset. There's only one specific person who can save the 100.

And I still don't accept that that one person wouldn't volunteer, seeing as how he's dead the next day anyway.

Preventable natural death is immoral - for the person who can prevent it.

Self sacrifice is never a moral imperative.

[GePap]

Then that one man is horribly immoral, and you can then try to bring some sort of crminal charges against him.

The choice is inherently his, not yours.

[David Floyd]

And when he says no? You will allow the 100 people to die. Great.

He won't say no, but IF he did, then yes, 100 people would die.

[mindseye]

The students' idealism went beyond merely "dialog".

I'm going on what their representatives officially petitioned the government for. I have not read anything that leads me to believe they were advocating a complete reform of the gov't into a "western kind of democracy".

Besides, you continue dodging the point that other alternatives could've been tried first, at little or no cost -- certainly less cost than hundreds of lives. If those alternatives failed, then they could've started the killing, no? Can you address this, please? You haven't yet.

Re: the vaccine: okay, then why not ask that one person if they want to volunteer to die to save the rest? Wouldn't that be better than jumping straight to killing? Or are you artificially limiting us to just two choices? Life seldom does so.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And I still don't accept that that one person wouldn't volunteer, seeing as how he's dead the next day anyway.

That one person is NOT among the one hundred.

[David Floyd]

That one person is NOT among the one hundred.

OK, then again, self sacrifice is never a moral imperative.