Sacrificing some to benefit others?

The economic development in mainland China in the past 20 years have often been touted as justification for the suppression and murder of peaceful protestors in and around Tiananmen Square in 1989. Implicitly and explicitly, some people are saying: without killing those people, China would not have progressed so rapidly, and might even have descended into chaos and disintegration. They are saying: too bad some of them have to die, but look at the benefits to so many people; these people occupying Tiananmen Square were in the way, so they have to go; since they refused to go peacefully, they had to die.

First of all, the situation might not have been as bad as some people claimed. The students were occupying Tiananmen Square, but the country was functioning otherwise.

Secondly, there were better ways to disperse the students in Tiananmen Square, even if it were necessary.

Thirdly, China might have progressed even better if the situation was resolved peacefully. There might have been less bitterness, secrecy, draconian measures, and corruption. The apparent prosperity in China these days is most likely a case of God savaging some good out of a disaster. The prosperity is not a consequence of the crime. It is a good that arose despite the crime. Without the crime, it could have been even better. We could have the prosperity plus liberty and equality, minus the corruption and inequality.

Finally, and most importantly, no one but God can decide to sacrifice some people for the benefit of others. And when God did that, He sacrificed His own son, for all of us. Some noble people may decide to sacrifice themselves for others. It would be immoral fo us to say that it is better to kill some innocent people so that others (or worse, we ourselves) can prosper.