Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[mindseye]

That fallacy is basically based on the idea that: A is bad, hence A is false. But that's fallacious because desirability is not connected to truth/falsehood.

I accept your correction.

Nonetheless, your argument is still invalid because it's a False Dilemma.

Your argument "If they had not used military force, the result would been far, far worse" reduces the options to just two (either military force or something "a thousand times worse"), when there were, in fact, other possible plausible outcomes.

Try again! Your argument still amounts to nothing but conjecture on your part. There were plenty of alternate courses of action (and possible outcomes). The fact that some of the reforms the students were asking for have since been taken up by the gov't without the consequences you predict rather tarnishes your argument.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


There is no such thing as "net morality". Morality results from the actions of individuals. Therefore, in order to encourage moral behavior, I must not act immorally. If someone else chooses to act immorally, that is their decision, but if I commit an immoral act to "stop" them (which I can't do anyway, as it is always up to them, not me, whether to act immorally), then I have acted immorally.

Morality is not a math problem.

Your immoral act would have pre-empted much greater immorality. Hence, it is a moral act.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Arrian


Plus, let's take your plague example. If you find someone whose genetics hold the key to curing the disease, and at the time it appears that killing that person (murder) is the only way, AND YOU ACCEPT THAT, you will stop trying to find another way. You'll just kill the poor sap and call yourself a hero. But a society that refuses to do that may continue to work the problem and come up with another way - a way which doesn't involve murdering an innocent person.

A society which thinks as you do will often pick a violent solution precisely because that type of solution is accepted and often the easy way out.

-Arrian

You're not addressing the problem. Let's say that the 100 people have one day to live, and the chances of finding a vaccine in the meantime is minusculely small. However, killing that one person gives you a very good chance at having all 100 people pull through.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by mindseye

That fallacy is basically based on the idea that: A is bad, hence A is false. But that's fallacious because desirability is not connected to truth/falsehood.

I accept your correction.

Nonetheless, your argument is still invalid because it's a False Dilemma.

Your argument "If they had not used military force, the result would been far, far worse" reduces the options to just two (either military force or something "a thousand times worse"), when there were, in fact, other possible plausible outcomes.

Try again! Your argument still amounts to nothing but conjecture on your part. There were plenty of alternate courses of action (and possible outcomes). The fact that some of the reforms the students were asking for have since been taken up by the gov't without the consequences you predict rather tarnishes your argument.

Gotta love these fallacies

But anyway - you've missed my point. I wasn't talking about the students' demands themselves - I was referring to the effects that continued visible street demonstrations would bring.

[DaShi]

But you can't be sure that such violence would have happened. As others have suggested, there were more peaceful solutions.

[Arrian]

You're not addressing the problem. Let's say that the 100 people have one day to live, and the chances of finding a vaccine in the meantime is minusculely small. However, killing that one person gives you a very good chance at having all 100 people pull through.

*waves goodbye to the 100*

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
1) Democratization.

Democratization cannot be done overnight in China. China's primary goal right now should be economic development, because only that would lay the bedrock for a liberal, open, stable society. Undermining the current CCP leadership overnight and leaving behind a power vacuum would create an anarchy that would take many thousands, or even millions, of lives.

Isn't it paternalistic in the extreme to assume that we have the right to set a timeline for another man's freedom?

[ranskaldan]

DaShi:

But you can't be sure that such violence would have happened. As others have suggested, there were more peaceful solutions.

You can't be 100% about anything. But you can be sure that given the situation then, such violence was very likely.

Arrian:

*waves goodbye to the 100*

-Arrian

!!!
And this is supposed to be moral?


DinoDoc:

Isn't it paternalistic in the extreme to assume that we have the right to set a timeline for another man's freedom?

What is your alternative suggestion? Or do you believe that we should simply stand aside and let random chance take its course?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


You're not addressing the problem. Let's say that the 100 people have one day to live, and the chances of finding a vaccine in the meantime is minusculely small. However, killing that one person gives you a very good chance at having all 100 people pull through.

But that's a completely different situation. There you know the outcome.

You can't predict what would have happened. That is the major flaw in your argument.

[David Floyd]

Your immoral act would have pre-empted much greater immorality. Hence, it is a moral act.

That's doublespeak. An immoral act is, by it's very definition, immoral.

You're not addressing the problem. Let's say that the 100 people have one day to live, and the chances of finding a vaccine in the meantime is minusculely small. However, killing that one person gives you a very good chance at having all 100 people pull through.

Very likely, that one person would volunteer to die for the sake of the other's, knowing that he would die anyway tomorrow.

However, if no one volunteers, picking someone at random is still wrong, and still murder.

I wasn't talking about the students' demands themselves - I was referring to the effects that continued visible street demonstrations would bring.

But wait - the demonstrations were in response to years of immoral acts committed by the PRC. The immoral acts prior to the demonstration were not caused by the demonstration.

[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!

(edit: formatting)

[David Floyd]

And this is supposed to be moral?

Natural death is neither moral or immoral - it is simply...natural.

[ranskaldan]

Dashi

But that's a completely different situation. There you know the outcome.

You can't predict what would have happened. That is the major flaw in your argument.

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

DF

That's doublespeak. An immoral act is, by it's very definition, immoral.

Morality is relative. Faced with two immoral choices, it is moral to pick the one that is less immoral.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
DaShi:
You can't be 100% about anything. But you can be sure that given the situation then, such violence was very likely.

Many would disagree. As has been said over and over, the student movement showed no signs of violence. It was simply percieved as a threat to the party. Their misinformation and fear of loss of face forced them to choose a violent solution. The action of Tiannanmen Square can not be justified.

[David Floyd]

Morality is relative. Faced with two immoral choices, it is moral to pick the one that is less immoral.

But we aren't ever faced with two immoral choices.

Even when presented with a situation in which we have a loaded gun, and someone tells us we have to shoot Person A, Person B, or yourself, there is still a fourth option - to do nothing.