One, single tribe. Because everyone is born equal and free, we have an obligation to help each other. I hope you remember this after watching the movie. Not a panther, you can also be a hero of daily life.
The movie "Black Panther" has been in theaters for a long time. After finishing this weekend, I think the storyline is a bit blunt, there are many bugs, and the characters are seriously facialized, but the heroic narrative can be carried out in African culture. The film uses music, costumes, architecture, rituals and other challenges to be superior to the whites, which touches some important things. The philosophical discussion: entertainment is not vulgar, the mainstream does not forget the edge, and it is not applauded by clapping hands, but it is worth watching.
Friends around us usually discuss this movie with several groups of concepts that are mutually antagonistic, such as isolationaism and interventionism , nationalism and internationalism , colonization and anti-colonialism, West and East , ancient and modern, progressive and conservative , technology and were taught, and so on. I think the above contradictions are all variants of the core issues, and they can all be returned to people. To solve all the problems perfectly, you only need to understand one question: Where is the boundary of the moral obligation of people to people? More specifically, are the rich morally obligated to help the poor? If so, what should he do?
Let me briefly review the plot of the movie. A few centuries ago, a meteorite fell to Africa. The five tribes waged wars for the precious resources that followed. A samurai ingested heart-shaped herbs and gained strong power to become the first black panther. He ended the war, unified the four tribes except the Jabari tribe, and formed the Wakanda Kingdom. For hundreds of years, the kingdom has developed advanced technology by mining vanadium alloys, turning Wakanda into a hidden third world to ensure that no one finds it. At the beginning of the story, the old king died unexpectedly, and his son Techara returned to Wakanda to prepare to inherit the throne. He had a fight with King Jabari who challenged the kingship, won, and succeeded in ascending the throne. The first mission of the new Panthers came to power was to capture the arms dealer Klau, but failed. The cousin Killmonger, who has royal blood, took the opportunity to take the opportunity to challenge the king's power, defeat the Panthers, and become the new king. After Killmonger came to power, he decided to provide Kandava's advanced weapons to black brothers all over the world to help them overthrow the existing regime and conquer the world. When Techara returned, the two had another fight, Killmonger was defeated and died in the sunset of Kandava. The Panthers came back to power and decided to change the national policy to share Kandawa's high-tech and abundant resources with the world.
On the surface, the movie is a battle for the throne, a duel between two men, Black Panther and Killmonger.
But in fact, it is an ideal arena, tribal elders who believe in isolationism (aka muffled to make a fortune), chief of guards who believe in nationalism (aka non-my people’s hearts must be different), and internationalism (aka international Rescue volunteers) nakia, and killmonger, who believes in interventionism (aka black flipped version of the world police), competed on the same stage. In the end, everyone was like a blacksmith forging a sword, and they beat out a "science and technology sharing, common development, priority to the country, and fairness." The new king Panthers of the comprehensive department. The question of the 500 billion yuan worth of the ring center is: do the rich have a moral obligation to help the poor? Wakanda's national policy is to open the country or close the country, make a fortune in silence or maintain world peace? Winter Soldier and agent ross, to save or not to save? Is it right or wrong for the old Panther to kill his brother? All contradictions are variants of the core issue: city-states are capitalized people.
Isolationism and nationalism do not think so. The reason for the former is safety . If the poor are saved, the rich will be insecure. The threat may be absolute (heavier), that is, the poor come to grab resources and threaten national security; it may also be relative (lightly), where the poor consume a lot of resources and reduce the original quality of life of the people. The reason for the latter is ethnicity . The poor are not their own. Why should we help?
Internationalism and interventionism think there are. Their disagreement lies in the way of rescue . Internationalism promotes peace and development. The rich should donate money, materials, and technology to the poor to help them survive, develop, and lead a self-sufficient and happy life. However, interventionism feels that the first thing to do is to overthrow the oppressive regime, without violence and no liberation, and the most important relief is to break the shackles on the feet of the poor.
There are various variants between the two poles. Killmonger’s belief is a combination of racism and interventionism. He advocates interference and violently overthrows oppressive regimes, but what he wants to protect is not everyone, but only black people like him. For him, the rich only have a moral obligation to the poor who have the same skin color as him. Panther girlfriend Nakia is a combination of racism and internationalism. etc.
So how to resolve this issue? If you are rich, rich and high-tech, should you help other people who are in a worse situation than you? If so, how much should you give out? Standing on the Wakanda arena, how do you delineate the boundaries of your moral obligations? Don't panic, the philosophers have already set out to solve it. Many years ago, Princeton University professor Peter Singer (peter singer) put forward a fun thought experiment to explore the above questions. Suppose Xiao Ming walks through a pond and finds that a child is drowning in the pond. Should Xiao Ming save him?
Almost everyone's first reaction was that Xiao Ming could not die, he had a moral obligation to save the child. But what if Xiao Ming and the child never knew each other? What if the child is black? What if the child is the child of Xiao Ming’s enemy? What if the drowning is an adult? Should the relief obligation be changed according to the identity of the recipient? On the other hand, should the rescue obligation be changed according to the cost of the rescue? If the rescue causes some loss to Xiao Ming, should he still rescue? If it gets his shoes dirty, should he save it? What if the shoes are famous brands? If we go further, will saving the child delay important meetings? What if delaying important meetings results in being fired, divorced by his wife, and losing custody of the child?
What Singh wants to explore with the "Shallow Pond Child Drowning Case" is about the principles and boundaries of people's moral obligations. Principles must be based on fully justified reasons and must have reasonable boundaries; otherwise, it will only be a bunch of arbitrarily rude empty truths, indifferent, selfish, or difficult for others. (The intermediate argument is very interesting. The recommended paper "famine, affluence, and morality" (famine, affluence, and morality) has more than ten pages. You will soon finish reading it. After reading it, you will have a new understanding of your life. It's fun, you can come to me for a book list.)
Singer concluded that “we should do our best to prevent suffering without sacrificing things of equal moral value.” That is to say, the rich should be able to bear and not threaten their own safety. Under the premise of the original quality of life, we will try our best to help the poor.
Have you noticed that this is exactly what the Panthers finally stated at the UN press conference. "I am the supreme ruler of Wakanda. This is the first time we have ever shared and exchanged our knowledge and resources with the outside world. We will no longer be behind the scenes, we cannot, we must not. We will show the world how to be like Treat our brothers and sisters as our fellow citizens on earth. Today, the illusion of division threatens our existence, but we all know that we have more in common than our differences. In times of crisis, the wise build bridges, and the fools build high Wall. We must reach a consensus and help each other, as if we were one, single tribe."
One, single tribe. Because everyone is born equal and free, we have an obligation to help each other. Do the rich have an obligation to help the poor? Of course there is! What should I do? Do your best within your ability! I hope you remember this after watching the movie. Not a panther, you can also be a hero of daily life.
In your actual life, have you tried your best to help people who are in a worse situation than you? If you buy unnecessary things, did you think that a few cents might be able to help African children, a few dollars might be able to help patients with rare diseases, and tens of dollars might be able to send a girl to school? Similar examples flood all aspects of daily life. May wish to listen to Singer's speech "Why and How to Become an Effective Altruism" https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism/transcript?utm_campaign=&source=twitter&utm_content=addthis-custom&utm_source=direct-on.ted .com & awesm = on.ted.com_jdkH & utm_medium = on.ted.com-twitter & language = zh-tw # t-431996 from
From now on, within your abilities, start acting.
View more about Black Panther reviews
