Dan Brown's answer is no. This answer is not only politically correct, but also has its own internal logic.
The first reason is that the protection of minorities is to protect the basic principles of the composition and operation of the community (the society and the organization below refer to the community). For example, a society consists of individuals (people) who have a basic consensus (as long as certain rules are followed, they will not be harmed). If the interests of some individuals (even the "majority of individuals") can be harmed for the benefit of some individuals, then the principles on which society is maintained will be questioned; Otherwise, even other individuals who have not been harmed for the time being, or even those who have gained one because of this, will feel uneasy and thus doubt whether society can protect itself. In other words, social consensus and basic rules, society always has the basic and highest interests of its members, a system that cannot protect the minority cannot protect the majority, and a system that cannot protect the civilians cannot protect the tyrant.
In "But", for the continuation of human beings as a whole, someone conspires to kill half of human beings (the movie mentions the problem of selection, that is, kills a considerable number of people at random). This kind of conspirator is anti-social in itself, unwilling and not allowed to be in the mainstream of society, and should not be discussed within the framework of the mainstream of society (community), but the argument itself is meaningful.
The second reason is that a spontaneously formed community has no right to require members to make sacrifices. This article is in doubt.
The third reason is that the definition of the majority/minority is based on the intelligence of the elite few and the values of the decision-makers, the latter two changing over time. It was hard for people in 1960 to imagine that the earth could accommodate 6 billion people, but in the 21st century, the earth has not only accommodated 6 billion people, but can accommodate more people in the future. In a slave society, slave owners may think that the death of several slaves is not a big deal at all, which is unimaginable in modern society. Therefore, since it does not happen in the future, it is impossible to judge whether it is necessary to harm the interests of some people. Those who answer this judgment in the affirmative tend to ignore the growth of social knowledge itself, leading to new means to deal with the problem in the future.
There are only two possibilities for sacrificing the real benefits of the present for possible future dangers: the cost to be paid now is small, and the future impact may be answered; the cost to be paid is irrelevant to the decision makers.
The fourth reason is that in actual operation, noble reasons can easily become a fig leaf for real rules such as exchange of interests. With the intention of concealing people's eyes and eyes and the compensation mechanism in their hearts, the higher the reason, the higher the degree of behavior that breaks the social rules. Of course, this is only a matter of experience.
In conclusion, no one has the right to decide who should sacrifice. When the community needs some members to pay more and get less, there must be corresponding compensation.
View more about Inferno reviews
