I just watched this old movie, I didn't want to discuss the ethics of train switchmen. Seeing that everyone is concerned about the dilemma, what I want to say is that the so-called ethics and morality are based on the fact that human beings are a living group. Human beings must be bound by basic rules. But when it comes to group survival, the rules inevitably fail.
Reasoning 1, if there are several people on one line of the railway, and not one person on the other line, but just a cat and dog, there will be no difficulty in choosing. -- Of course, those who are paranoid about caring for small animals, please go away, I don't want to make a fuss. -- Therefore, ethics and morality are only valid in human groups, and are invalid outside.
The second reasoning is that in the case of a nuclear war between countries, there is no difficulty in choosing under the precondition that if you do not throw a nuclear bomb on the enemy country, you will have to suffer the nuclear bomb yourself. Of course, in more historical situations, in fact, only one party "thinks" that this precondition is true, so it is still necessary to object. But we are here for a logical discussion, assuming that this precondition is true. --Let's stay away from humanitarians. If you want to be a saint, donate all your family property to those who are poor, sick and needy. No country is lacking. Don't just talk and practice.
The third reasoning is that in the era of great voyages and colonies, the resources are only enough for the survival of one boat. What should people do with two boats? In the case of compatriots, teammates or even family members, although there is difficulty in choosing, a ship must be sacrificed, either voluntary or compulsory, and in extreme cases, outbreaks of fighting. "Three-Body Problem" describes the "darkness" of the human space fleet fleeing to survive. But this is inevitable.
Therefore, when it comes to the survival of the "ben" group, ethics and morality are bound to be abandoned. "If you lose your humanity, you lose a lot. If you lose your animal nature, you lose everything." The most basic animal nature of any living group is survival and reproduction. And this "basic" group, described by Chinese culture, is gradually enlarged from near to far. Self-cultivation and family governance are the same as the world. It is from individuals to families, families, countries, and the world.
The scene of cutting the throat of the innocent wife is extremely shocking, but it is reasonable. The nuclear bombs have come out, and the ethics of wool are still debated. It can be guessed that in addition to discussing the ethical dilemma, this film also has the meaning of washing the ground for the torture of prisoners in the United States. A group of politicians and soldiers, the Virgin Mary policewoman, both wanting benefits and refusing to get blood on their hands, just let it go for a while to stop the male protagonist. Only the male protagonist has seen through the truth, and he is responsible, quite the spirit of the swordsman in "Three-Body Problem".
Conversely, can the terrorists in the film be called responsible? You see, when we discuss the ethical dilemma, why don't we start by setting up nuclear bombs to question the terrorists, why not start by questioning the old America from the American troops stationed in the United States and slaughtering Islamic civilians, and why not start with the terrorists hitting them with planes? The twin towers begin, again. . .
So, the first troublesome question in discussing "us" ethics should be, where to start to determine the scope of "us" group.
View more about Unthinkable reviews
