Very interesting movie, many people will think of the tram problem, is it the lives of the few or the lives of the many? Likewise, the protection of minority interests or the development of nations or races? In fact, the two are almost the same, and the choice is actually not made by those few people.
In the film, several people representing the government, the army, the constitution, and the interests of the majority make choices in the face of morality and survival. Their duties require the abandonment of some personal emotions. One track is that there may be hundreds of millions of people in three cities, and the other is The human rights of terrorists, so choosing to survive is not a difficult decision; later whether to torture the terrorist or accept the conditions, the responsibility lies in choosing the former; one woman's life and terrorizing two children, they still choose to survive; the last two children's lives , Betting that there is a possibility of a bomb, they disagreed and chose morality and conscience. But they are involuntarily gods. Their relatives and bottom line dictate choices that should not contain any selfishness. The author even joins two extremes, such as guiding the audience to stand in line, H or the heroine?
I think the choice is not important. What matters is the problem itself. The life and death of millions of people is like an individual's choice of the direction of civilization, whether to develop unscrupulously, or to retain empathy for the same kind and not give up the vulnerable groups in the group. On the one hand, the survival instinct of the human race determines that it will plunder everything and sacrifice the few to continue itself. On the other hand, the prosperity and progress of civilization is inseparable from morality, so that they cannot abandon the few.
If I say that if human beings can sacrifice everything that needs to be sacrificed, including freedom, equality, and disadvantaged groups to develop themselves by unscrupulous means, human beings would have reproduced like cockroaches until they exploded and developed a technology tree, occupying the galaxy and occupying the universe (who will end up with them? You know, maybe they're all extinct). For the continuation of the race, national barriers and technological blockades hinder development, so there should be no national borders. People in the third world are a drag on the group, so they should sacrifice and maximize the use of resources to support the development of the main world. Homosexuality , the elderly, the disabled, and children who are not healthy enough should be abandoned. The inferior races are the labor force to support the life of the superior races. The superior races are divided into racial prosperity and dedicate their lives according to their talents. The rebels are suppressed in order to maintain stability.
We have a lot of science fiction works to discuss the social form of this model and the possibility of its eventual extinction. Some people may be very optimistic. In any case, this will not be the choice of human beings, at least not the current choice. The wisdom developed by human beings and the Empathy keeps us at a gentle but upward pace of development, free and equal for all. Does it make us more progress, or closer to death? Maybe one day human beings will kill themselves because of this. It is also possible that this kind of morality is the reason why we can continue. In any case, as an mvp selected by nature, human nature is at least not a defect, otherwise it would have been evolved long ago.
Speaking of the movie, instead of struggling with the heroine and H, the hero as the designer of this problem is the easter egg of the movie. What are his options and choices?
View more about Unthinkable reviews
