I’d argue that China is a historical counter-example. Killing children for crimes that they MIGHT commit is still just murdering children and the kind of thing that the feudalists and bourgeois engage in regularly throughout history, to the detriment of humanity.
It’s not killing children for crimes they might commit. It’s killing children due to them being part of a larger system that has to be eradicated. In this sense the children are as much victims of the system as anyone else is.
The circumstances that allowed china to turn Puyi into a janitor were not the same circumstances that forced the hand of the soviets to pull the trigger without trial. Had the royal family fallen into the White Army’s embrace, then the USSR would never truly be safe from a monarchist reaction.
This, I agree with. It’s easier to judge from a current perspective when not facing that danger. I do think it is important to maintain the context though, as you pointed out, the children were victims of the same system and should be treated as such. Just because an act was monstrous does not mean it may but have been necessary. And just because an act was necessary does not mean that it was not monstrous.
I think I take issue with the choice of calling the act monstrous. It was both necessary and understandable, while we can be detached from emotion, that family sat at the top of a system that had plagued people for centuries. Expecting cold rationality, especially in those conditions, is silly.
I don’t think a monstrous act can be necessary.
I think, as you mentioned elsewhere, this is such a situation where it’s not black and white. The family had been a true blight on the people and could not be allowed to continue their rule. You are absolutely correct in that expecting cold rationality is a mistake humans are emotional creatures (something that I’ve had to get comfortable with myself). To me, killing a child will always be a monstrous act and being found necessary or understandable doesn’t change that.
I’d argue that China is a historical counter-example. Killing children for crimes that they MIGHT commit is still just murdering children and the kind of thing that the feudalists and bourgeois engage in regularly throughout history, to the detriment of humanity.
It’s not killing children for crimes they might commit. It’s killing children due to them being part of a larger system that has to be eradicated. In this sense the children are as much victims of the system as anyone else is.
The circumstances that allowed china to turn Puyi into a janitor were not the same circumstances that forced the hand of the soviets to pull the trigger without trial. Had the royal family fallen into the White Army’s embrace, then the USSR would never truly be safe from a monarchist reaction.
This, I agree with. It’s easier to judge from a current perspective when not facing that danger. I do think it is important to maintain the context though, as you pointed out, the children were victims of the same system and should be treated as such. Just because an act was monstrous does not mean it may but have been necessary. And just because an act was necessary does not mean that it was not monstrous.
I think I take issue with the choice of calling the act monstrous. It was both necessary and understandable, while we can be detached from emotion, that family sat at the top of a system that had plagued people for centuries. Expecting cold rationality, especially in those conditions, is silly.
I don’t think a monstrous act can be necessary.
I think, as you mentioned elsewhere, this is such a situation where it’s not black and white. The family had been a true blight on the people and could not be allowed to continue their rule. You are absolutely correct in that expecting cold rationality is a mistake humans are emotional creatures (something that I’ve had to get comfortable with myself). To me, killing a child will always be a monstrous act and being found necessary or understandable doesn’t change that.
Fair enough, good point.