Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[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.

[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

Quote:

- 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.

[GePap]

So what? As mindseye keeps pointing out, you are artificailly limiting the possible outcomes, and as far as morality goes, the choice of life or death to save would sill fall on the individual, not you.

And again, the attack on the portestors as it occured was criminal.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by 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.

You can make the choice to kill him. You can make the choice to save 100 lives.

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.

Well alright - I grant you that the government could have tried other things first - though I doubt this would have prevented the final outcome in the end.

As for the demonstrators - the general motivation and sentiment was definitely democracy - even though the formal demands put forward were not. Amazingly this is the only thing that the pro- and con- sides agree on.

As for the volunteer - let's say he says no.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
You can make the choice to kill him.

Fine, then accept the penalties you will suffer for the act of murder.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap


Fine, then accept the penalties you will suffer for the act of murder.

Well then, I would consider the jury who convict me in this case to be morally twisted. Hopefully they have at least some feelings for the 100 people who were saved.

[loinburger]

The fundamental problem with the 1 death or 100 deaths dilemma is that it presupposes that you've got perfect information. While those who ordered the massacre may have believed that they were operating on perfect information, this is most likely not the case -- there was no way to know for certain, or even with (e.g.) 75% certainty that a dialogue would have resulted in violence. How many times had this situation occurred in the past, and how many times did violence result from dialogue?

However, an even greater problem with the dilemma is exactly what Mindseye has been pointing out -- it is a false dilemma. Even if we assume that the demonstration had to be broken up in order to forestall anarchy (i.e. dialogue was not an option), this still does not excuse the brutality employed. Why tanks and rifles? Would tear gas and riot gear have inevitably resulted in anarchy, such that nothing less than a massacre could have maintained order?

[Drake Tungsten]

If the student demonstrations were such a clear and present danger to the social stability of China that they had to be crushed at once with overwhelming force, then why were many of the younger CCP leaders against the action? If the threat was as dire as ranskaldan makes it out to be, I don't think there would've been so much dissension in the ranks of the CCP leadership. If only Deng had listened to the more moderate leaders...

[GePap]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well then, I would consider the jury who convict me in this case to be morally twisted. Hopefully they have at least some feelings for the 100 people who were saved.

You decided to overturn the laws of wherever you live by claming for yourself a right you do not have. In order to avoid anarchy, the book should be thrown at userpers like yourself.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by loinburger
The fundamental problem with the 1 death or 100 deaths dilemma is that it presupposes that you've got perfect information. While those who ordered the massacre may have believed that they were operating on perfect information, this is most likely not the case -- there was no way to know for certain, or even with (e.g.) 75% certainty that a dialogue would have resulted in violence. How many times had this situation occurred in the past, and how many times did violence result from dialogue?

Dialog doesn't result in violence itself - but dialogs run into snags, they stall, they continue, they stall again, and in the meantime the situation with demonstrators continues.

However, an even greater problem with the dilemma is exactly what Mindseye has been pointing out -- it is a false dilemma. Even if we assume that the demonstration had to be broken up in order to forestall anarchy (i.e. dialogue was not an option), this still does not excuse the brutality employed. Why tanks and rifles? Would tear gas and riot gear have inevitably resulted in anarchy, such that nothing less than a massacre could have maintained order?

Tear gas and riot gear would just delay the problem until next morning.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Dialog doesn't result in violence itself - but dialogs run into snags, they stall, they continue, they stall again, and in the meantime the situation with demonstrators continues.

So dialogue was not an option, since it would have inevitably... taken more than a day? I'll grant that a massacre was certainly a quicker solution to the problem, the question is whether it was the better solution.

Tear gas and riot gear would just delay the problem until next morning.

What problem? Tear gas and riot gear have a strong tendency to break up demonstrations -- it's tough to camp out in a square filled with tear gas and cops swinging billy clubs.

[mindseye]

Well alright - I grant you that the government could have tried other things first

Whew! Thank you!

Why tanks and rifles? Would tear gas and riot gear have inevitably resulted in anarchy, such that nothing less than a massacre could have maintained order?

Exactly! The fact that Deng and others went straight for the tanks and rifles tells you what the Party really felt about the People.

If the student demonstrations were such a clear and present danger to the social stability of China that they had to be crushed at once with overwhelming force, then why were many of the younger CCP leaders against the action?

Good point, there was great dissension even within the top-most ranks of the Party. Zhao ZiYang,the Party General Secretary, was one of the foremost pressing for conciliation.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by reds4ever


He'd have stood a chance with a spear in Civ3!

well that's life , that's what people say - one day I die, tomorrow some feel sad, the day after they make jokes - and this one is a bloody good one

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap


You decided to overturn the laws of wherever you live by claming for yourself a right you do not have. In order to avoid anarchy, the book should be thrown at userpers like yourself.

Huh?

And I'm undermining the moral fabric of society because? I saved 100 lives?

Maybe you should understand your opponents' points before eagerly using a strange version of it against them.

[GePap]

"The moral fabric of society"? What moral fabric? You have rights given to you by the system. if you go beyond those rights you endanger the system. You do not, as an individual citizen, have the right to decide the life or death of fellow citizens. Only the state has that right, after it meets certain criteria of proof. What you think is moral or not is immterial, you either have the right to it or not. For you to terminate the life of another citizen is murder: why you think you did it may grant you some level of leniency, but you are still going beyond what you rights and resonsibilities are, and thus endanger the very system you claimt o be trying to uphold.

You as an individual do not have the authority to claim to act in the name of the system. For you to do so is a crime. And thus you will ahve to accept the penalties for your crime.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by loinburger

So dialogue was not an option, since it would have inevitably... taken more than a day? I'll grant that a massacre was certainly a quicker solution to the problem, the question is whether it was the better solution.

Quickness is often good, especially in a volatile situation.

What problem? Tear gas and riot gear have a strong tendency to break up demonstrations -- it's tough to camp out in a square filled with tear gas and cops swinging billy clubs.

And should every single Chinese street be continuously pumped with tear gas for the next six weeks?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by GePap
"The moral fabric of society"? What moral fabric? You have rights given to you by the system. if you go beyond those rights you endanger the system. You do not, as an individual citizen, have the right to decide the life or death of fellow citizens. Only the state has that right, after it meets certain criteria of proof. What you think is moral or not is immterial, you either have the right to it or not. For you to terminate the life of another citizen is murder: why you think you did it may grant you some level of leniency, but you are still going beyond what you rights and resonsibilities are, and thus endanger the very system you claimt o be trying to uphold.

You as an individual do not have the authority to claim to act in the name of the system. For you to do so is a crime. And thus you will ahve to accept the penalties for your crime.

while this might be logically correct, if it was being upheld we would all still serve the Pharaons