3 ms·
A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. The fact is that the situation in Xinjiang
by c1ccccc1 5y ago
A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. The fact is that the situation in Xinjiang is terrible and seems to be getting worse. The question is what can be done about it. For the Chinese government, the answer is simple: Close down the internment camps, and let the people go home. But the Chinese government isn't likely to read this comment, and even less likely to act on its advice. For other countries, the available actions will be more indirect. I think we should focus on getting as many Uyghurs out of the country as possible. This would require other countries to take them in as refugees or immigrants. It would also require some way of getting them physically out of China, which would be easier with the cooperation of the Chinese government. In theory, if China views the Uyghurs as a kind of nuisance, it should easily agree to let them leave for greener pastures, but in practice that doesn't seems to be the case. Perhaps the worry is that they will badmouth China once they leave. It's probably more complicated than that, but definitely worth pondering on with so many lives at stake.
- chaostheory 5y agoWhat you’re suggesting isn’t feasible because it would mean that the CCP “loses face”. Not happening.
- yunohn 5y ago> A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. While I agree with this, the OP was commenting about how their friends turn away when the issue is brought up, and comparing how OP reacts to similar crimes about their own country. So, that’s a point I felt warranted to discuss. More generally, historically, colonization has always been about “taming the savages” and “teaching them (Western) morality”. Slavery and exploitation went hand in hand with this mindset.