Thursday, January 21, 2010
China teen seen as hero
Li Shiming was assassinated by 19-year-old Zhang Xuping who confessed to the murder. Xuping was seen as a hero by many people. The people who saw him as a hero had previously been harassed by Shiming and nearly twenty-one-thousand people petitioned for leniency towards Xuping. Shiming was stabbed in the heart and was able to get in his car but died before reaching the hospital. Xuping apologized to Shiming's family, but the eldest son rejected the apology and hoped that Xuping would be sentenced to death by a firing squad. Everybody that tried to resist Shiming would either be detained or jailed. The villagers stated that he was evil and several even said that they wanted to kill him personally. The death penalty was handed down and an appeal was filed. I think killing someone is wrong but Shiming was abusing the power he had and nobody would stop him until Xuping came along. The villagers on the other hand saw it as Shiming got what he deserved. Many people might say that those who are "unstoppable" with power usually lean towards the idea of killing the person, but I highly doubt they see themselves actually being the one's doing it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well, here's the thing. What do you do when you have an unstoppable dictator like figure and the only options you seem to have are assassinate the dictator, or live in oppression? Neither choice is fun, but the answer is clear. Kill the oppressor. This will promote happiness, which is the good.
To Sam:
"What do you do when you have an unstoppable dictator like figure and the only options you seem to have are assassinate the dictator, or live in oppression?"
This is not a realistic situation. There are always options. Removal from power and proper repercussions thereafter. Who is to handle that? The U.S., NATO, the UN, etc. We are ultimately the world's policeman. If the situation you described were to happen, this is what should happen in response. Murder, regardless of the situation, is never the answer. Sam, I thought you would support that. In all honesty, those in favor of this, should be in favor of the death penalty. An eye for an eye? That doesn't get your professional message across. How are you triumphing over the evil that has been committed by committing the same such acts?
"This will promote happiness, which is the good."
That's very vague and you know that. Happiness for whom?
Andrew my man, you are correct that the U.S. and NATO and the UN should help people who are oppressed. However, when no one helps them, what are they expected to do? It is difficult to judge the actions of others when we ourselves don't know what it is like to be oppressed.
By the way, how did this guy oppress the villagers?
Drew, it really is a realistic situation. Removal from power is, unfortunately, the easiest way to get rid of a dictator (I don't know the specifics of the situation, so I'm just going to operate within a hypothetical). Overthrowing a military dictator is very difficult to do, because the oppressed are going to have a difficult time peacefully overthrowing someone that commands an army.
I did not say that I liked the options, but those are the two most practical and most likely to succeed. Assassinate the dictator, or live in oppression. Do I like either choice? Of course I don't.
This differs considerably from a death penalty situation. My moral system is about the promotion of happiness. A murderer who is detained ought to be locked up not to punish him, but to make sure he can no longer harm society. The dictator is actively harming someone, and the global police are not interfering (and if they did, they'd probably kill him for the sake of punishment). If the only way to end the massive amounts of unhappiness being created by the dictator is to kill the dictator, then it is a more moral choice (for a Utilitarian) than to let him remain in power, and continue his oppression. What matters are the consequences of the action.
The Utilitarian Principle states that we ought to act in a way to promote the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. I am of the opinion that this needs some restrictions, because if the maximum number of people would be made most happy by persecution of a minority, this would not be conducive to everyone's happiness. I think that the goal should be happiness for everyone, and this cannot be achieved with a complete tyranny of the majority. I have concluded that a person's happiness should only be decreased if they are actively decreasing the happiness of others, and even then, their happiness should not be reduced beyond necessity. In other words, don't make them miserable, just stop them from taking happiness away from others.
With regards to this situation, the dictator could be most successfully removed (by that I mean that it is most likely to remove him) via assassination. It is, while not a desirable choice, the most moral choice according to this standard.
Okay,
1. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have no idea what you guys think a military alliance comprised solely of Europe and North America would be doing in China. This makes absolutely no sense. The UN probably wouldn't do anything either as this seems like a domestic issue and there are no high crimes against humanity happening here. This is a despotic government official, not genocide. And Drew, the US should not be interfering with domestic issues of other countries. This neo-imperialist view is why so many other countries have a poor opinion of us.
2.
While I see your point Sam, I feel that I have to disagree with you. Assassinating the oppressor may not have been the best option as I feel it sets a very poor precedent. A nonviolent solution may not have been possible but this act may instead bring more attention from the Chinese government to this region, bringing more oppression as they may view this region as being especially unruly. This would not promote happiness. In fact, the opposite.
Also, Drew, according to this system, if there had been an equally likely to succeed method of removing the dictator, that would have been preferred, because it would not have decreased the dictators happiness below necessary levels.
Good point Joe. If you are correct and that is what happens, I'll have to agree.
In this situation there really is no excuse for murder despite what the popularity wants. A man murdered another man and for whatever reasons, the consequences must be the same whether the man is popular or whether he is a feared man. I agree that the mans actions were noble but that does not excuse the fact that he murdered another man and caused him extreme amounts of pain. Either lifetime imprisonment or death by a firing squad would be fitting as a punishment.
Even though 21,000 people petitioned for leniency towards Xuping, it's still not okay for him to murder someone. Xuping shouldn't be given the death penalty , but he should serve some years in jail. Many people get harassed every day but they can't just kill the people they get harassed by.
Then I have to pose this question: if World War II had not started yet, and you had the opportunity to kill Hitler knowing that if he survived millions would die, would you do it? Most seem to believe that this would be a morally wrong action. I don't disagree, but I think allowing all the horrors he caused to be realized is far worse.
To Omid:
"However, when no one helps them, what are they expected to do? It is difficult to judge the actions of others when we ourselves don't know what it is like to be oppressed."
They're supposed to do the right thing. They should at least attempt to do what we would do, even if we weren't there. That's what we do in a classroom, right? The teacher distributes a test to his/her students and then has to excuse his/herself, do we then run around the room screaming and hollering or do we continue to take the test? People shouldn't always have to have a chaperone, but sometimes, the situation requires it.
If the people had the means to carry out an assassination they definitely had the means to subdue the oppressor without conflict. Violence is ALWAYS a last resort. However, if the situation exacerbates and there are no viable options available, then yes, proper retaliation is necessary.
To Sam:
"Removal from power is, unfortunately, the easiest way to get rid of a dictator ... "
I think it's the best solution. When the dictator doesn't hand themselves over to the authorities, when they're certainly aware of the crimes they've committed, then other steps can be taken.
"Overthrowing a military dictator is very difficult to do, because the oppressed are going to have a difficult time peacefully overthrowing someone that commands an army."
That's why I presented the military as a last option.
"A murderer who is detained ought to be locked up not to punish him, but to make sure he can no longer harm society."
The purpose prison serves it so punish AND rehabilitate convicts. Unfortunately yet predictably, people don't want to be rehabilitated. These two goals attempt to prevent convicts from harming society any further. People do bad things Sam, so they must be punished, but they must also be corrected so the same mistake won't happen again. Whether or not they want to be corrected is a different matter.
"The Utilitarian Principle states that we ought to act in a way to promote the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people."
What if doing the wrong thing makes people happy?
To Joe:
"I have no idea what you guys think a military alliance comprised solely of Europe and North America would be doing in China. This makes absolutely no sense. The UN probably wouldn't do anything either as this seems like a domestic issue and there are no high crimes against humanity happening here. This is a despotic government official, not genocide. And Drew, the US should not be interfering with domestic issues of other countries. This neo-imperialist view is why so many other countries have a poor opinion of us."
Joe, wow. We were all speaking on more of a philosophical level. I am not suggesting that we send troops to China. Did you really think I meant that? We were all just extrapolating the principles being discussed on a much larger scale. Period.
Sam, I don't care if the dictator is happy or not. I just want to serve the more right and reasonable purpose. I'm glad you're understanding what I'm saying, however.
Seth, I agreed with everything here but I don't think his actions were noble. I think the best punishment is lifetime imprisonment, however. I am also against the death penalty. A tooth for a tooth is never the right mentality.
To Sam:
"Then I have to pose this question: if World War II had not started yet, and you had the opportunity to kill Hitler knowing that if he survived millions would die, would you do it?"
Imprison him for life. Done.
"If the people had the means to carry out an assassination they definitely had the means to subdue the oppressor without conflict."
All an assassination requires is a gun. How do you suggest they subdue the oppressor without conflict? Will the oppressor's armed force stand by and watch? Will they let him be kidnapped and locked up? What alternative way do you see? If the people don't have any political power, how can they nonviolently remove the dictator?
"People do bad things Sam, so they must be punished." Yes, but we tend to look at punishment as an "eye for an eye" thing. Rehabilitation is nice when possible (my favorite option actually). But punishment to "teach them a lesson" or to "make them suffer" is not, in my opinion, the point. The point is to stop them from harming society.
""The Utilitarian Principle states that we ought to act in a way to promote the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people."
What if doing the wrong thing makes people happy?"
Utilitarianism defines pleasure and happiness as the good. It is morally correct to pursue them. If an action makes people happy, it is morally correct. If it makes people unhappy, it is morally wrong. Once again, I consider unnecessarily decreasing anyone's happiness to be morally wrong, and this eliminates the idea of the majority doing something horrible to the minority, because it is unnecessary.
""Then I have to pose this question: if World War II had not started yet, and you had the opportunity to kill Hitler knowing that if he survived millions would die, would you do it?"
Imprison him for life. Done."
That isn't an option within this hypothetical. Either you kill him, or he starts WWII.
"Sam, I don't care if the dictator is happy or not. I just want to serve the more right and reasonable purpose. I'm glad you're understanding what I'm saying, however."
Again, happiness is the good in my moral system. Operating within that system, it is morally wrong to decrease the dictator's happiness unnecessarily. So if it is possible to remove him without killing him, that is preferred to killing him. Killing him eliminates the possibility of the dictator ever being happy again. Imprisoning him and allowing him to read novels would remove the problem without killing him or forcing him to suffer.
Post a Comment