Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[Arrian]

So I assume that you believe that nations that have food surplusses and do not donate the entirety of those surplusses to starving people around the world are guilty of murder?

Personally, I think that's a steaming pile of horseshit. They might be guilty of callous indifference, but not murder. Murder is an overt, deliberate act of violence. Failure to prevent it is not the same as doing it.

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

As a bystander with full knowledge and power to change the situation, you are also a murderer.

Wrong. You are never a murderer unless you commit murder. This is very simple. Now, if you have a MORAL (ie, non-murderous in this example) means to prevent murder, you should of course take that action.

What about a case when the 100 people are about to die of pneumonia - or kill each other?

This is incoherent - what are you arguing here?

In this specific case you do. That's why there's the word "prevent" in there.

But your basic premise - that murdering an innocent prevents 100 other innocents from being murdered - is illogical. Murder is caused by individual decisions, not thte actions of other individuals.

[David Floyd]

In other words, if one child is about to pour sulphuric acid over another child (both are too young to understand), you should simply stand aside because you aren't making the decision, even though you can easily prevent it?

1)Two children have nothing to do with your example.

2)You have an easily moral means of preventing this tragedy.

3)You are not guilty of murder, even if you do nothing.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Arrian
So I assume that you believe that nations that have food surplusses and do not donate the entirety of those surplusses to starving people around the world are guilty of murder?

Personally, I think that's a steaming pile of horseshit. They might be guilty of callous indifference, but not murder. Murder is an overt, deliberate act of violence. Failure to prevent it is not the same as doing it.

-Arrian

So you agree with David Floyd that it's better to let 100 people die than the murder 1?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


1)Two children have nothing to do with your example.

2)You have an easily moral means of preventing this tragedy.

3)You are not guilty of murder, even if you do nothing.

Let's see.

If someone decides to murder 100 people, that decision can't be attributed to you in any way whatsoever, only to the immorality of that one person.

So by your logic, we should of course let that one child pour acid over another. After all, this can't be attributed to you.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong. You are never a murderer unless you commit murder. This is very simple. Now, if you have a MORAL (ie, non-murderous in this example) means to prevent murder, you should of course take that action.

How about preventing the murder of 100 - by taking an action that involves the killing of 1?

[David Floyd]

So by your logic, we should of course let that one child pour acid over another. After all, this can't be attributed to you.

I never said this. In your example with the children, there is a moral way to prevent them from hurting each other. You are trying to tie two situations together, but the situations have nothing to do with each other.

In one scenario, you are committing murder, and in another scenario, you are preventing a child from dying. The actions of other are irrelevant - all that matters is the morality of your own actions, or at least, all that matters as it relates to you.

[Arrian]

Give me one concrete example of a situation were you KNOW FOR SURE that killing 1 person will definitely save the lives of 100 others (who would absolutely die but for the death of the 1).

You can't. Because such an example doesn't exist. You can argue probabilities, but there is no certainty. And in any case, killing one to "save 100" is still murder. Misguided, well-intentioned murder, but murder nonetheless.

Furthermore, I believe that there MUST be another way to save the 100, other than killing the 1. In this specific case, there certainly seemed to be (how about talking to them, instead of running them over with Tanks, eh?).

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

How about preventing the murder of 100 - by taking an action that involves the killing of 1?

If the 1 person is the killer of the 100, then yes, I would say that it's moral to kill him. If it is ANYONE ELSE AT ALL, then killing him is immoral.

Remember, murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent - and there is no way that you can possibly justify it, with any logical coherence.

But let me ask you a question: Is there a right to life?

[ranskaldan]

Let's start from the beginning. Murder is wrong because it results in the death of an innocent, and the death of innocents is wrong.

Hence, if 100 people die, that is very very wrong.

But if those 100 people can be saved by killing 1 person, this is now less wrong, because those 100 people will get to live.

Hence you should take the less wrong choice - because it is relatively right.

[Arrian]

If the 1 person is the killer of the 100, then yes, I would say that it's moral to kill him. If it is ANYONE ELSE AT ALL, then killing him is immoral.

Bingo, I agree.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Rans,

Murder is not just wrong because it results in the death of innocent people. Innocent people die every day of natural causes. Murder is wrong because one human being is taking the life of another. It's a deliberate act of violence against another person - infringing on their right to life.

-Arrian

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


If the 1 person is the killer of the 100, then yes, I would say that it's moral to kill him. If it is ANYONE ELSE AT ALL, then killing him is immoral.

Remember, murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent - and there is no way that you can possibly justify it, with any logical coherence.

That was the logical justification in the first place - so that one hundred people can now live.

If 100 people are dying of a rare plague and the only way to cure them is to kill the one person who holds in his body the secret of immunity, would you do it?

But let me ask you a question: Is there a right to life?

Of course. 1 person has the right to life, and 100 people have the rights to all of their own.

[David Floyd]

Let's start from the beginning. Murder is wrong because it results in the death of an innocent, and the death of innocents is wrong.

Hence, if 100 people die, that is very very wrong.

But if those 100 people can be saved by killing 1 person, this is now less wrong, because those 100 people will get to live.

Hence you should take the less wrong choice - because it is relatively right.

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.

[Arrian]

By the way, Rans, if you accept killing 1 person for the good of 100, you will forever be condoning massacres. Because there are soooooo many ways to come up with a "we had to do this, for the good of THE PEOPLE" justifications.

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

[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

Quote:

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.

[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.