Choose Sally and become an accomplice in the war in order to save yourself and the people around you; or choose Borg and sacrifice yourself and the lives around you in order to end the war?
Sally chose the few around him, Borg chose the majority in the uncertain distance. But does this choice really have anything to do with the number of people? If we change the multiple-choice question: imagine that a train is heading towards ten children who are attentive playing on the rails, and you can now change the direction of the train so that it is heading to another rail where no trains normally travel. Unfortunately, there was only a child playing at ease on the other track, knowing that no trains would normally pass on this track. So, would you choose ten kids, or one kid?
I once watched a video of a Harvard lecture. The professor said that judging justice based on the number of people is utilitarian, and judging justice based on behavior itself is behaviorism. If there is a need to separate the two doctrines a little more, just answer one question: If you could save a country now by killing an innocent man, would you choose to kill him?
In fact, both utilitarianism and behaviorism can become dangerous. Assuming that Sally has the knowledge of nuclear weapons, telling the fascists this knowledge can save the name of the entire concentration camp prisoner. From the behavioral point of view, "telling" itself is more just than "killing", but this may lead to catastrophic consequences. Suppose Borg had to kill all the campers himself to prevent the knowledge of nuclear weapons from leaking, his hands would be stained with blood.
Life is the absolute and inviolable primary right of human beings, and no individual has the right to take the life of others. If someone has to be killed to save someone else, I'd rather not. Because not being able to save other people just shows that I am incompetent, maybe I will regret my weakness, but killing makes my hands stained with blood, and I have become a killer from a loser.
But where does the death penalty come from? Isn't the reason for the death penalty just to make life better for the "majority"? Who gave the power to take the life of a condemned prisoner? Where does this power come from? Perhaps this is the order that most people have drawn from history to make society better. Even if they don't understand the specific meaning of the death penalty to the whole society, the execution police can still safely shoot the death row prisoner because he "believes".
This is the thinking that the movie brought me, maybe the movie itself didn't involve so much. Fascists themselves are wrong, and their consciences are constantly being questioned while helping the Nazis. Sally is not a simple face, but a complex "real" person. He has his own justice, which is to do better on the premise of saving the people around him. Because of his witty fight against the enemy in prison, the counterfeit dollar bills could not flow smoothly into the financial markets of the Allies, resulting in no major fluctuations in the exchange rate, which indirectly helped the liberators' war to be at an advantage until they liberated themselves. This is also the best reward for the justice he believes in.
It can be said that Sally spent the best time in the concentration camp. When he came out of the concentration camp, he was drunk and dreamed, and deliberately lost money in the casino. But he felt empty, far more helpless than in prison. Only in the free air, the comfort of beautiful women, the calmness of dancing, and finally the seaside at night, can we return to a peaceful state of mind. Sally just survived by chance, because he is still an unrecognized person. I wonder if he will feel a little regret for his past when he sits quietly by the sea?
Sally, a flesh-and-blood man of complex contradictions. In fact, movies with a sense of reality can make people think more and think closer to the truth in their hearts and the justice they recognize. Thinking of this, I can't help but feel sorry for the suffering China. How many ghosts have roamed this land for over a hundred years? We have seen too many works of reflection on World War II and Judaism, but there are too few works of reflection on hometown. Whether it is the eight-way film of the old era or the recent "Nanjing, Nanjing", the subjective intention and purpose of the author and director are all It's too obvious, and after watching it, it loses the motivation to think.
True, so that the good see beauty.
View more about The Counterfeiters reviews
