Dilemma of Morality

Just a moment ago in our dinner table with all my housemates plus a taiwanese friend, we exchanged a heated debate ,especially between me and e-pien about whether oppressive figures ( Mao Ze Dong, Stalin, Shih Huang Di ) are 'good' or 'bad'.
The confusion is the vague terms 'good' and 'bad' -whether you are judging on/talking about the morality or the benefits. However that is not the big case, the bigger problem we are talking about -- whether their acts are justifiable. These so-called 'controversial' figures are alleged (or known to) killing/torturing/capturing many dissidents (and all their innocent close relatives - in SHD's case). E-pien kept on defending the acts of SHD were to bring enormous benefits to China nowadays, for example, he conquered/'united' China (those time is called Chin empire), the standardize Chinese characters, built Great Walls to defend the empire. She acknowledged about the inhuman acts of SHD/ MZD of relentless killing, but these acts were totally necessary to bring the great benefits, to justify their ends. *see below

This is the same argument used for MZD, if it were not him, you will not see how China rises and is 'inspired' to the superpower today and growing stronger ever on the stage of the world now. She stressed that, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the only viable choice for the China people to gain the recognition today... this is how it goes. She posed this imaginary hypothesis -- how do you think about today China would be this strong and stable if it is not under the iron-grip rule of CCP regime? What other choices you could provide/suggest to build a strong power?

Just like what she mentioned earlier on during dinner, history has no 'what if' (situations). However it is equally wrong to suggest, if it were not CCP, China will be definitely weak or unstable -- how do you know? It is very hypothetical - but later i would suggest that it is equally possible it could be better. Back to the core question, Could you justify any act of killing, in the name of 'future benefits of the nation'? Killing is fundamental immoral and wrong, what could you justify to defend the act (other than it is for self-defense)? It could not be justified even in the name of 'God'. There must be so many ways out there you could do to achieve your target/aim/benefits without bleeding innocent lives. If killing could be justified by the ends, why do we need laws/constitution? If you don't condemn the acts, and in fact supporting those barbarian, uncivilised acts, what signals you are sending to those war-criminals/ oppressive regimes? Wouldn't it legitimate themselves and allow them to continue doing those bad deeds going against Human Rights? Now is already 21st century, in a civilised society we are, you must get the principles and values right. I am so appalled by the thoughts of those.

Same argument would be now used by North Korea, Burma and many undemocratic regime. Even psedo-democratic countries like Malaysia and Singapore. Can you remember how many times we were living under the fear and threats from Barisan National (BN) ruling party of Malaysia that they are the only viable choice we have to provide a strong and stable nation, or else 513 Race riot will bound to happen? Isn't it a lie? Even if the riot is not going to happen, we cannot discredit that our national Opposition parties could not perform better than BN. It is the same question i'm asking -- How do you know? the same thing back to China's CCP regime. You see the CCP's way seems to be working, but how do you know if it's only on the superficial? The rot is rot , you don't smell it does not mean it does not happen!

Malaysia's economy under Dr. Mahathir's 22 years rule, is seen to go soaring high up until 1997 financial crisis. During the same period, Indonesia, thailand and many other neighbour ASEAN countries were seen the same too. I don't think it is fair to give all credits to Dr. Mahathir -- all the countries were riding on the high wave of economy bull-market. Development is any government's responsibility. Whatever is your economy track record, it does not give you any right or excuse to go arbitrary arrest and detend anyone indefinitely, or worse still, killing people (not talking about Dr. M). Undemocratic country is a coward and a hypocrite, because they dare not to face the critics, and debate with them to defend your ground and show your model is working the best. If you have nothing to hide about and sincerely think you are doing the best, why go silencing the dissidents/critics instead, but why not enforcing your policies to prove to the critics you are right and silent them thereafter?

My high-school best friend, he always like to discuss and argue/debate with me on many matters. There is once he put forward his hypothesis that, each nation needs to go through a dark history of iron-grip blood-shed regime(s) to ensure the nation to emerge to be strong power in the world, then only it is possible that a full-blown democracy comes after that. His analysis is probably right on many countries' history, but not all -- I cannot say i agree, but in the face of civilised world, violence is not a factor of necessarity for a nation to be strong. If the people are taught the right principles and values, they will now endorse violence, and otherwise would embrace democracy and freedom straight away - skipping the whole chapter of the dark history.

War or violence is the old game of Survival of the Fittest theory in nature, when ancient time human/animal compete for resource and want to win the competition, violence is the only thing they know how to resort to settle the issues. I believe, until nowadays there are still people living in ancient uncivilised world going to war (or cause bloodshed in their own country) in the name of 'benefits for the nation' or 'God'.

Is MZD a good guy, who really wants to liberate his people? or he just want to use that as the propaganda to seize and maintain his power? Were his people at that time liberated or got more 'restricted' by arbitrary killing in his 'anti-revolutionist' movement and famine?

Back to the centre question, Can a guy's hands full of blood be considered 'a good guy', because you just see China seems stronger and more powerful (in economy) nowadays? So what if China isn't going the way today you see today or if other bloodless event took place and could achieve better than now, then would you label him a 'bad' guy instead?

It is more interesting to see how certain people keep voicing the support to the regime, and few are merely hoping that the regime will change the nature of their rule. The contradictory part is, if the change is good, then you must imply that the current state affairs now is not good, but you would still support them on the basis that they will change. What if they don't change?

That is the dilemma of Morality of certain people. I'm very scare if one day they would support those fanatic regime (not by truly democratic way) because they believe they are doing for the glory and benefit of the nation.

At least now, I'm glad to see how the myths of BN: 1) the forever-government of Malaysia, 2)the stability of multiracial society is dependent on their rule and 3) the only government that could sustain and bring economic developments, are going to break soon. Their past existence in Malaysia history whether they prove more benefits than harms, is a very good subject to discuss. Please draw the comparison of the myths of BN to the myths of CCP. To me, i would say BN is much better than CCP in this case.


* (from the passage above) Dave argued that if it were not SHD, we chinese are still writing BC-centuries of big chinese caligraphy characters... Oh really? that's one big assumption - All language writings evolve in their own way, one would dominate over others depends on the power influence. Well, i don't see any other regimes like SHD killing scholars to unify the writings... i guess they had used soft-power to steer the direction of the official language. In my opinions, would it be more losses than gains, when SHD burned away many books of (inherited) knowledge, and the diversity of language and culture?
Yes, it happens to SHD the first who expanded his empire to the greatest land area, that is so called 'unite'/conquer China (while the people were rebellious to the Chin empire, and the empire is very short-live). Many subsequent other Emperors conquered greater land area, and why not they are the one play more important part in shaping the modern China territory today?