 |
| |
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
You keep talkig about jeaporising the lives of 100 people: no one is doing such a thing. Those 100 people have a disease and will die of it. Only one man had the ability to save them (the man who alone can lead to the cure), and thus, as i have been saying all along, only he can chose whether by his own sacrfice, the 100 people will die. This is the last time I will say it, but you have no moral claim to be a "savior". You are not the keeper of those 100 people. If they die, it is a tragic but natural event. If the man sacrifices himself, then he is a hero. But if you act like you claim you have the ability to, then you are a murderer. This is a point of moral agency. You have constructed a scenerio in which only one individual has the power to save, AND IT IS NOT YOU! You do not have the right to decide for the one person who does have the power what he should do. Even morally, all you can do is try to convince the one man with power, to be a supplicant and ask for his sacrifice. But you have NO MORAL AUTHORITY to kill him, PERIOD. In the excersise you have constructed, only one man has moral agency, and is thus his choice. You can show us no evidence whatsovere that the death of the 100 will be worse for society as a whole than the death of that one, becuase yo can not show us that in the end, any of those 100 will contrbute anymore to society as a whole (a huge mass of humanity millions and billiomns strong) than that one man. And since you can not show us at all, nor even correctly specualte the plus of minuses fo society of the act you advocate, you can not call upon yourself the mantle of the defendor of the common good.
So in short: in the example you have given us, only one individual has the moral agency to decide the outcme, and that indivisual is the one who through the use of his body could save them. Only that one individal can, both legally and morally, make the decision. You have no right, moral nor legal, to userp his choice. |
Let's see: basically you shouldn't murder that person because:
1) The 100 people are dying in an absolutely natural way.
2) That one man has his right to life, and the right to decide it. You cannot usurp it.
--- both are invalid because:
1) As long as the death is preventable, it is NOT natural. This is the same reason why you shouldn't stand aside and watch a child drown.
Hence, you CANNOT argue that therefore the deaths of those 100 are "natural". No preventable death is ever NATURAL.
2) It is that man who DOES NOT have the moral agency to live so that 100 others die. His rights do NOT override that 100 people. You are the one who DOES have the moral agency to kill him so that 100 people can live.
Whether or not the consequences of your actions are direct (that man one dies/lives) or indirect (100 people die/live) is irrelevant. That man is killing 100 people - and you're stopping him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mao
|
|
Apolyton
Jun 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
...is anyone talking about Tiananmen Square anymore?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
That seems to suggest that when these killings happened they happened outside of media coverage. This is far too convenient to be believed. |
Not at all. The western media was all concentrated in the hotels around the square. They were there for Gorbachev's imminent visit. At that time, foreigners were only allowed to stay at designated hotels. You didn’t know that? |
Hm, so you are telling me that the jouralists did what they are told? I mean, they didn't go around surreptitiously? I do not believe that none of them were out there looking at this massive protest, sneaking around the crowds and stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
So when did you start taking quotes out of context? |
Huh? You weren't talking about the violent response to the protests? Here's the original context:
GePap: "The protests were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it."
UR:"Where else in the modern history of the world has there been a huge group was allowed to continue to occupy an important area and caused such an enormous disruption? I'd say the CCP handling was overly lenient, the crowd should have been dispersed much, much, earlier, like everywhere else in the world.
So are you saying that your claim that the response was lenient wasn't referring to GePap's quote about the violent response?  p |
Didn't GePap referred to the protests turning violent? At any rate, I was saying that the CCP should have broken up the demonstration much earlier. So you did indeed quote me out of context.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
Okay, assume that there are indeed lots of Westerners there and lots of Chinese eyewitnesses. What did they say? How could that be verified? |
Well, you just read some of what they said. As for verifying it, attributed quotes published in western papers and books are usually reasonably realiable. If you doubt them, you could track down the speakers and ask them yourself. There are still plenty of mothers in Beijing who never saw their son, daughter, or husband again after that day. |
The problem here is it is almost impossible to track down anything that was said, particularly for a part-timer who do not have the money and connection to perform the searches. Given several hundred names, how does one track them down in a city of 15million? If it's a small town like Nashville or Memphis, and there are photos of the witnesses, it can be done for a determined ameteur. In this case, however, no way.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
There are a lot of things being alleged at, but there is no solid evidence to back anything up. This is almost surreal, it's like speaking about Roswell, UFO's, and men in black. |
I guess if you call photographs of burning APCs and scores, even hundreds of mutually consistant eyewitness accounts "surreal", then I suppose it was a surreal happening, as surreal as any other in history. |
Here's one of the sticky points. Eyewitnesses accounts are not consistent.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
By the way, we're not just talking about American newspapers here, are we? Media all over the world do not dispute the events of that day, not to mention respected ngo's like Amnesty International. |
First of all, I am not going into whether AI is as credible as one might think. Some of the reports are very weak, based on some rather sketchy evidence and anonymous witnesses. Be that as it may, this is not the main issue here.
Now, you may not be aware of this, but I do have docos and other materials from Western sources that dispute the widely-held accounts.
Let me point one thing out. I am not disputing the fact that something happened. I am disputing the scale and the perspective.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
If this was some sort of collosal American conspiracy, don't you think media all over the rest of the world would jump on it? |
Com'on. Many people don't even believe The Guardian and Reuters, you expect them to believe, say, Soviet sources?
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
How about Jonathon Spence? He has written that 700 were killed during the events of that day. |
700 is not 7000.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
This was one of the major causes if not the major cause. Had the students left as they promised, the crackdown would not have happened. |
Are you saying that this justified the military response? As Spiffor pointed out, there are accepted crowd control techniques used all over the world that do not involve opening up on crowds of people with rifles and machine guns! |
As I have responded to Spiffor, if there were complete information and infinite amount of time to plan out a response, it would be different.
As we are debating the event in hindsight, invariably we find things that should have been done differently. But this is not how you analyse a historical event. You have to put yourself in their place. Given the information the CCP had, and with time running out, what choices would they have?
Also, we are not talking about several thousand people here. The situation seems to have spiralled out of the local police's control at that point.
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
Would you not classify that as anarchist behaviour? |
It was a reaction, not the cause. The people did not start barricading streets until they perceived (correctly) that an armed military force posed a mortal threat to the crowds of college students. The people tried to stop the military because they were extremely angry at the government's reaction ... and they wanted to save their children's lives! |
The armed forces was there to disperse the crowd first and foremost. The protestors could have chosen to leave instead of making a stand. In fact, as I mentioned before, they did clear the square by 20:00, which was the deadline given to them. Still, what was the point of barricading the streets if they were going to leave? Why would they put up a militant reponse if the "leaders" wished to resolve the event peacefully?
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
quote:
I do not recall two waves of soldiers coming into the city. AFAIK, the troops matched into the city came from the Western provinces. |
I am not surprised, your "recollection" of the events seems quite poor, to say the least. The first soldiers involved, from the 38th Army, reached the square on May 23. They had been sent in for crowd control. They were young and green. They refused to fire on the crowds, some climbed out of their trucks in tears. Many ended up singing patriotic songs with the protesters (the protesters were taking pains to show their patriotism, another oft-overlooked fact). After this failure, Deng organized a massive force of about 200,000 veteran troops, drawn mainly from the 27th Division, to surround the city. Many of them,as you noted, were drawn from western provinces, so there was less chance they would associate themselves with the people. This was when the people started erecting barricades. Most of the killings occurred in the area of the Muxidi Bridge in the western suburbs, when the 27th started shooting their way into the city center. |
Crap, I can't find my book. So I just have to look up the details later.
The point I would like to make now is, as you have pointed out, the situation on 4/6/1989 was quite different than that of earlier days. It was very chaotic, and militant factions took over control of various areas of the city.
As I said, what would you have done at that very moment?
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
Here's an excellent, highly-detailed account written by an American communist who witnessed many of the events (including deaths). |
Did I tell you that a couple of Aussie communists were there, and what they told me was rather different?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
All the fallacies are RED HERRINGS, so stop it now 
I think what Ran is trying to say:
Terrorist A has locked everyone in a theatre, tied them to a wall, gagged them, and has a nuke that he says hes going to detonate in 10 minutes.
It would be morla for you to kill Terrorist A in order to prevent the deaths of 10+ million people.
However, if you do NOT do such things, EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOT PULL THE TRIGGER YOURSELF, you let him pull the trigger without doing anything to prevent it, and therefore you have INDIRECTLY murdered 10+ Million people. And commited suicide.
Everyone cries, goes onto Poly, and say the terrorist was being too leinient when trying to (get money, stop a war, etc etc).
There.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:28
|
|
quote:
Hm, so you are telling me that the journalists did what they are told? I mean, they didn't go around surreptitiously? I do not believe that none of them were out there looking at this massive protest, sneaking around the crowds and stuff. |
Of course they were! Check that link to the account by the American communist (who spoke fluent Chinese). Unfortunately, few if any were in the areas of the fighting on the morning the army rolled in - remember, the worst of it happened some distance from the square, for example around Muxidi Bridge. Those in and around the square have written quite a bit about what they saw, and what they saw was soldiers shooting people with AK-47s, tanks crushing tents heedless of occupants, scores of dead or wounded people being carted off. Their stories are quite consistent with each other, and with the writings of other witnesses, Chinese and foreigner.
quote:
So you did indeed quote me out of context. |
So when you made the statement "I'd say the CCP handling was overly lenient.", you were referring only to the amount of time the CCP waited until it ordered in the military? Rather an odd statement in light of what happened next! Oh yeah, I forgot - you deny the killing took place.
quote:
The problem here is it is almost impossible to track down anything that was said |
Sorry, that's not true at all. There are plenty of published accounts, you can contact the authors by email or letter.
Your argument seems to be that (1) all foreigner witnesses (journalists and otherwise) fabricated or wildly exaggerated what they saw, and (2) all Chinese eyewitness accounts can be discounted as fiction because you personally cannot locate the witnesses to verify their stories. My, how convenient!
quote:
Here's one of the sticky points. Eyewitnesses accounts are not consistent. |
We are talking about an event that included hundreds of thousands of participants spread over a large geographical area. I'm sure some differ at some levels, simply because different people saw different things at different times and places. However, are you saying that large numbers of witnesses disagree over the basic facts? Please elaborate on this.
quote:
Let me point one thing out. I am not disputing the fact that something happened. I am disputing the scale and the perspective. |
Earlier you said that discussing the events of June 4 was "surreal, it's like speaking about Roswell, UFO's, and men in black." Now you seem to be saying that you differ only in numbers of casualties or something. Maybe you can elaborate on just what you do think happened.
quote:
Com'on. Many people don't even believe The Guardian and Reuters, you expect them to believe, say, Soviet sources? |
Incredibly lame argument. "Many people" don’t believe Reuters therefore ... the entire world's press corps must be lying about Tiananmen??? Well, when virtually the entire world's press (including those usually at odds with the US) agrees on the basic facts, I'm inclined to put some stock in what's said, especially since it matches what Chinese witnesses say.
Do you really believe that virtually the entire world's press collaborated to falsify Tiananmen? Now who's talking conspiracy theories?!
Maybe you missed it when I earlier wrote "No one really knows how many died on that day, but the best guesses are in the 500 - 1,500 range, with thousands more (both civilians and soldiers) injured."
The point is no one knows how many died on June 4, and no one knows how many more were executed afterwards. The lowest estimate I have seen - that of the CCP itself - is that 200 civilians were killed on June 4 (no mention of the aftermath). That would imply that at least many hundreds more were injured. Don't you think it takes something more than a minor scuffle to result in, at minimum, nearly a thousand casualties?
quote:
As I have responded to Spiffor, if there were complete information and infinite amount of time to plan out a response, it would be different. |
Jeez, they took weeks! How much more time was needed? It took two weeks alone just to assemble the 27th Army on the outskirts of the city!
quote:
Given the information the CCP had, and with time running out, what choices would they have? |
Personally, I think they had at least a few other options than machine-gunning civilians!
quote:
Also, we are not talking about several thousand people here. The situation seems to have spiralled out of the local police's control at that point. |
Are you implying that once the problem was too large for the police, the only possible response was to order the army to start executing civilians?
quote:
The protestors could have chosen to leave instead of making a stand. In fact, as I mentioned before, they did clear the square by 20:00, which was the deadline given to them. Still, what was the point of barricading the streets if they were going to leave? Why would they put up a militant reponse if the "leaders" wished to resolve the event peacefully? |
Please do us all a favor and do a little research into what happened. As I've said before, the barricades were not erected by student protestors. They were erected by workers and other residents of the city who were trying to prevent the army from reaching the square. Most of the slaughter occurred when the PLA blasted its way through these barricades. More happened as they approached the square. It was only at this time - when the PLA reached the square, after most of the deaths had already occurred - that the students agreed to leave the square (under a cease-fire negotiated with the PLA by China's most famous rock star, oddly enough).
quote:
As I said, what would you have done at that very moment? |
Well, I'd like to think that my first choice would not have been to start slaughtering civilians! I think I would've arranged a forum to meet with the representatives of the movement at an agreed upon date at least a week or two later. That would buy some time to defuse the situation.
quote:
Did I tell you that a couple of Aussie communists were there, and what they told me was rather different? |
Oh, so those two Aussies saw everything, both east and west of the square, even out at Muxidi Bridge? I guess their claims must be true, and the claims of hundreds of other witnesses (Chinese and foreign) must be fabricated. Got it! How about the doctors and nurses who counted hundreds of bodies at Beijing hospitals? Oh never, mind. The two Aussies. They know better. 
Mabe you should show those photos (you know, the ones you denied existed) to the two Aussies.
- o -
UR, more than a few times in this forum I've seen you refer to John King Fairbank as a reliable documenter of things Chinese. Let's see what he has to say about this "Roswell"-type incident (bolding is mine):
quote:
But the aged CCP leaders refused to negotiate. Instead, they called in the tanks of the People's Liberation Army. After prolonged hesitation, they opened fire on June 4 and killed, at the official figure, 200 unarmed demonstrators, perhaps many more, and wounded thousands.
(...)This ended the CCP regime's support among the urban and intellectual elite. (...) (The CCP) began a relentless pursuit of everyone connected with the events leading up to June 4. Interrogations, jailing of student leaders, execution of worker leaders and required study and informing maintained a low-level terrorism among academics.(...) Once again, China had succumbed to its own backwardness. As the repression continued during the next two years, open dissent was silenced. |
Source: "China, a New History", John King Fairbank, 1992.
Last edited by mindseye on 07-06-2003 at 18:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
1) As long as the death is preventable, it is NOT natural. This is the same reason why you shouldn't stand aside and watch a child drown.
Hence, you CANNOT argue that therefore the deaths of those 100 are "natural". No preventable death is ever NATURAL. |
Only one type of death is unpreventable in some sort or another, that from old age. So according to you, ALL DEATH is unnatural, save one. Sorry, but this is wrong.
quote:
2) It is that man who DOES NOT have the moral agency to live so that 100 others die. His rights do NOT override that 100 people. You are the one who DOES have the moral agency to kill him so that 100 people can live.
Whether or not the consequences of your actions are direct (that man one dies/lives) or indirect (100 people die/live) is irrelevant. That man is killing 100 people - and you're stopping him. |
There is no right to live. You do not have a right to survive a disease, you do not have a right not to be eaten by some animal, you do not have some right to live through an accident, you do not have some right to be safe all the time! You have no rights vis a vi nature, vis a vi death. You only have rights vis a vi MAN and SOCIETY. That is the point. You have a right to expect not to be murdered, robbed, raped, and you can try to demand a right to some sort of basic care, to aid, but that is it. It would be nice to make sure those 100 people live, but if they died, they died from somehting that just is, disease. They had no right to expect survival, only to expect the best medical care possible. Their survival is NOT more improtant than the system, is not more important than the rule of law and the continuation of the system of rights and privaledges we have built. That man you are so eager to kill does have rights, rights to expect not to be murdered. The fact is that you can not show that his death by your hand is somehow more morally acceptable than the death at the hand of nature of the other 100. YOU are bound by obligations and laws, by the bounds of human society. Pathogens aren't. That they are not does not mean that you somehow can ignore all that hold society together becuase you personally value the life of 100 starngers over the ife of another 1. But as I have stated, you do not have the right to make that desicion, never have and never will.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
What does that have to do with running over innocent people with tanks? |
Nothing!
I've conceded that mindseye's right about Tiananmen, and then GePap and I continued our side-argument about whether it's moral to kill 1 person to save 100.
edit:
Well, it's not exactly nothing. Read Spiffor's post above.
Last edited by ranskaldan on 08-06-2003 at 04:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Only one type of death is unpreventable in some sort or another, that from old age. So according to you, ALL DEATH is unnatural, save one. Sorry, but this is wrong. |
This is right. As long as death is preventable by someone with knowledge and power over it, then the death is unnatural.
quote:
There is no right to live. You do not have a right to survive a disease, you do not have a right not to be eaten by some animal, you do not have some right to live through an accident, you do not have some right to be safe all the time! |
And YET, that ONE man has the sacred right to life, no matter what terrible consequences would come from his continued survival (e.g., a hundred other people dying)? What kind of contradiction is this?
quote:
Their survival is NOT more improtant than the system, is not more important than the rule of law and the continuation of the system of rights and privaledges we have built. |
I'm not even going to consider that you are supporting the Tiananmen killings in that argument above.
quote:
That man you are so eager to kill does have rights, rights to expect not to be murdered. |
Alright - so although people don't have the right to expect to live all the time, especially not those dying 100 people (according to you), this one man does? That contradicts your very point above about how "no one has rights extending beyond the society he lives in".
quote:
Pathogens aren't... |
When are you going to understand that it doesn't matter if your actions lead directly or indirectly to some consequence! In one of the choices, your actions lead to the death of 100 and the life of 1, in another choice, your actions lead to the death of 1 and the survival of 100. Which rule of morality are you following that preaches making a more deadly choice?
quote:
But as I have stated, you do not have the right to make that desicion, never have and never will. |
Anyone has the right to be proactively moral. But no one has the right to be immoral when he has full power to perform a moral act.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
This is right. As long as death is preventable by someone with knowledge and power over it, then the death is unnatural. |
You are screwing with the meaning of natural
quote:
And YET, that ONE man has the sacred right to life, no matter what terrible consequences would come from his continued survival (e.g., a hundred other people dying)? What kind of contradiction is this? |
[
There is no contradiction. You have no right's vs pathogens. OIf they got you, bam, you're dead. You do have rights vis a vi a fellow human being, and one of thoese rights is to expect not to be murdered.
quote:
I'm not even going to consider that you are supporting the Tiananmen killings in that argument above. |
Read "rule of law". It is a strecht to say that Tanks rolling over people is a victory for the rule of law.
quote:
Alright - so although people don't have the right to expect to live all the time, especially not those dying 100 people (according to you), this one man does? That contradicts your very point above about how "no one has rights extending beyond the society he lives in". |
You keep being obtuse. The things bringing about death, the circumstances of death are what matters here. You have a right, as all other citizens do, to expect that your fellow citizens and any other human being, will not seek to murder you, no matter why they might want to murder you. The same is not true about you vis a vi a non-human things or creature. There are no rights whatsoever in such a situation.
quote:
When are you going to understand that it doesn't matter if your actions lead directly or indirectly to some consequence! In one of the choices, your actions lead to the death of 100 and the life of 1, in another choice, your actions lead to the death of 1 and the survival of 100. Which rule of morality are you following that preaches making a more deadly choice? |
What action is the man you seem so eager to kill taking? Not commiting suicide? I preach a morality in which individual are bound by laws and conventions, by rights and responsibilities. And if that means that once in a while 100 must die and one live, then so be it.
quote:
Anyone has the right to be proactively moral. But no one has the right to be immoral when he has full power to perform a moral act. |
Murder, which is what you are advocating, is NEVER moral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
You are screwing with the meaning of natural |
It is precisely this screwing around that has motivated us to combat diseases, natural disasters, and countless other calamities. Nothing that human beings can potentially improve is ever "natural".
quote:
quote:
And YET, that ONE man has the sacred right to life, no matter what terrible consequences would come from his continued survival (e.g., a hundred other people dying)? What kind of contradiction is this? |
[
There is no contradiction. You have no right's vs pathogens. OIf they got you, bam, you're dead. You do have rights vis a vi a fellow human being, and one of thoese rights is to expect not to be murdered. |
Direct and indirect murder are the same thing. The survival of those 100 people is humanly possible; hence, allowing them to die is equivalent to murder.
quote:
quote:
I'm not even going to consider that you are supporting the Tiananmen killings in that argument above. |
Read "rule of law". It is a strecht to say that Tanks rolling over people is a victory for the rule of law. |
Rule of law is subjective for any society. You yourself agree, in your previous posts, that rule of law may sometimes result in sh!t for some people in society.
quote:
quote:
Alright - so although people don't have the right to expect to live all the time, especially not those dying 100 people (according to you), this one man does? That contradicts your very point above about how "no one has rights extending beyond the society he lives in". |
You keep being obtuse. The things bringing about death, the circumstances of death are what matters here. You have a right, as all other citizens do, to expect that your fellow citizens and any other human being, will not seek to murder you, no matter why they might want to murder you. The same is not true about you vis a vi a non-human things or creature. There are no rights whatsoever in such a situation. |
You also have a right, as a human being, to expect that if you have a disease, others will treat you to the best of their ability - because anything else would be murder. It's not merely the pathogens - anyone else who stands aside and fails to treat the 100 people to the best of their ability is also commiting murder. (As I said, direct and indirect murder are no different in terms of morality.)
In this case, the rights of the 1 and the rights of the 100 clash, and the rights of the 100 clearly should dominate.
quote:
quote:
When are you going to understand that it doesn't matter if your actions lead directly or indirectly to some consequence! In one of the choices, your actions lead to the death of 100 and the life of 1, in another choice, your actions lead to the death of 1 and the survival of 100. Which rule of morality are you following that preaches making a more deadly choice? |
What action is the man you seem so eager to kill taking? Not commiting suicide? I preach a morality in which individual are bound by laws and conventions, by rights and responsibilities. And if that means that once in a while 100 must die and one live, then so be it. |
So be it? Is that your best argument? I'm sorry, but a society that condones favouring 1 ordinary man over 100 ordinary people is hardly one that is bound by "laws and conventions, rights and responsibilities".
quote:
Murder, which is what you are advocating, is NEVER moral. |
You yourself are advocating the immoral murder of 100 people. Since we are faced with two immoral choices, the only thing a moral person can do is to take the less immoral choice - i.e., murdering the 1 to save the 100. You, unfortunately, are not choosing that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
It is precisely this screwing around that has motivated us to combat diseases, natural disasters, and countless other calamities. Nothing that human beings can potentially improve is ever "natural".
|
Absurd. Man can change what is natural, making it artificial (by means of art).
quote:
Direct and indirect murder are the same thing. The survival of those 100 people is humanly possible; hence, allowing them to die is equivalent to murder. |
That something is possibile does not make it moral, first of all. Second, allowing the sick to die is not murder, never has been, and never will be. Murder = unlawfull killing. There is no law mandating that sick people live. There are laws making it a crime to murder someone.
quote:
Rule of law is subjective for any society. You yourself agree, in your previous posts, that rule of law may sometimes result in sh!t for some people in society. |
Rule of law is not subjective. And yes, the law does not mandate equal results for all human beings. But it does set about a set of things that are acceptable and others that aren't. Murder is in the later set.
quote:
You also have a right, as a human being, to expect that if you have a disease, others will treat you to the best of their ability - because anything else would be murder. It's not merely the pathogens - anyone else who stands aside and fails to treat the 100 people to the best of their ability is also commiting murder. (As I said, direct and indirect murder are no different in terms of morality.) |
Again wrong. It is your duty to porvide the best medical help possible, within the scope of the law. Murder is well outside of it.
quote:
In this case, the rights of the 1 and the rights of the 100 clash, and the rights of the 100 clearly should dominate. |
Again (for the millionth time), the sick do NOT have a right to survival if the disease is sufficiently bad. They have a right to expect the best mdecial care possible, within the scope of the law. But every human being has the right not to be murdered. We don;t put doctors who failed to cure if they gave it their best (without breaking the law) into prison.
quote:
So be it? Is that your best argument? I'm sorry, but a society that condones favouring 1 ordinary man over 100 ordinary people is hardly one that is bound by "laws and conventions, rights and responsibilities". |
"Favoring"? I really fail to understand how you can not get it! I as a human being DO NOT have the responsibility to make sure every single other human being live. I only have the responsibility to make sure I do not cut short the life of any (ANY) human being unless in a situation where legally it is allowed. You do not have the responsibility ot save the 100, but you do have the responsibility not to commit a crime. Murder is a crime. Letting 100 people die of disease ebcause you had no way of helping them, short of murder, is not a crime. It is tragic, but not criminal, not wrong.
quote:
You yourself are advocating the immoral murder of 100 people. Since we are faced with two immoral choices, the only thing a moral person can do is to take the less immoral choice - i.e., murdering the 1 to save the 100. You, unfortunately, are not choosing that. |
For the millionth time (it seems), those 100 people dying of disease are not being murdered. All that is tragic is NOT immoral. It is tragic to see 100 people die when there was a way to save them, but if that way involves the gross violation of another person who was otherwise healthy and happy, then that way is grosly immoral and horribly wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2003 08:26
|