I knew that the director would arrange the last ending, because we already knew that if the little girl stayed in the retired policeman's house, the ending would be fairy tale and they lived happily ever after. . . But the protagonist called the police, and the girl was sent back to her mother, which sounds good, but. . This mother is clearly far from the standard of a good mother, taking drugs, leaving her children alone, and swearing. In the last scene, the mother went out on a date alone and entrusted the child to the protagonist. At this time, we found that the mother even called the child's doll wrong. The protagonist accompanied the little girl on the other side of the screen, and I was on the other side of the screen , be silent together. .
From the perspective of the whole society, the little girl will go to a better family, receive a better education, and grow up healthily, and the old policeman will have a child since then. Other participants also think that this is a good thing, and everyone is happy. Oh, there was one victim, and that was the child's mother, the drug-drinking bitch, and she absolutely deserved it.
But wait, do we really have the right to take someone else's child for a good reason? Even though this child's life is painful now, it is his life, do we have the right to interfere? Can we do whatever we think is right, kind, and beneficial to society? Even at the cost of hurting others? In other words, do we have the right to judge people?
Michael Sandel mentioned a point of view in Justice. If I remember correctly, it was advocated by Jeremy Bentham. The so-called utilitarianism (Utilitarianism): If there is a sum of the happiness of the whole society, our purpose is to make this sum of happiness. maximize. But the question he doesn't address is, by how much can we judge a person's happiness? Even if it could, how would the happiness of different people compare? Is it okay to hurt the few for the happiness of the many if the sum of happiness is maximized? What if the ratio of happiness in return to harm done is large? For example, just hurting someone a little can make countless people happy. Is it correct to do so?
These problems left by utilitarianism make us feel that the interests of the minority cannot be violated at will, but think about it in reverse, the price paid for protecting the interests of the minority, the scene at the end of the movie is: the protagonist thinks it is wrong to do so, So called the police, the old policeman and his wife whom the little girl loved, and the uncle who told the girl's stories all went to prison. The poor girl returned to the drug dealer's mother's house. It was a slum, and her mother would not care about her. No one will remember her birthday, and she may grow up to be like her mother. If for the sake of fairness and to protect the interests of the very few, the happiness of the many is sacrificed in exchange for a little comfort from a drug-addicted mother (just one point, she doesn't care about her child at all, but she knows how to cherish it when she loses it, But after coming back, it's business as usual), is this the right thing to do?
I'm a little lost, and I'm thinking that if I were in it, I must be like most of the people on the show, choosing to let the children go to a better family, but what bothers me is that I still think we have no right to interfere with other people's lives privately. , if we think other people are living in misery and try to rescue them wishful thinking, what we do may not be help, but harm, she did gain some, but what she lost was her original life, she should some life. What we do is not just helping, but trying to change a person's entire life. Who can afford such a great responsibility in our whole life?
To expand, what if the United States thinks that the North Korean people are living in dire straits and raises the flag to try to liberate North Korea? This is clearly inappropriate. But when Libya's dictator shot at his own people, the UN collectively passed sanctions (although no military was dispatched, but this possibility in the future is not ruled out).
When I wrote this, I suddenly remembered the popular online photo shoot some time ago, claiming to rescue those begging children who were abducted and trafficked. Unfortunately, it seems that many of the begging children were indeed instigated by their biological parents. So do we have the right to deprive them of the right of father and son to be together because their parents instigated their children to beg for food and used their children to make money? Are we capable of taking our child away and promising him a happy life? And on the premise of losing his biological parents.
The opening credits say that what we can't choose determines who we are, the circumstances in which we are born, our family, the community we grew up in, our country, our race, our gender, these are things we can't choose, and it's precisely these Things make up our unique lives.
Maybe there is a balance and a degree, but where is the balance? Everyone has their own judgment, and even a person will have different choices in different circumstances, which is too subjective.
Slum children, war-torn countries, demolished houses.
Changing the lives of others carries a lot of responsibility. After all, happiness cannot be promised, but the damage is immediate. If the happiness we try to give is not realized, the consequences will be for the parties to bear more harm.
executor's responsibility. Not only responsible for the promise of happiness, but also for the harm caused, and everyone in the film paid the price.
There is no doubt about the consequences of taking action, but this is different from the value judgment before taking action, and this is the real problem we are facing now. Is it correct to do so?
Well, since this is a value judgment, obviously everyone's judgment on it is subjective, everyone is different, and we can't satisfy everyone. This conflict of values, even a debate will never come to fruition, so the protagonist's girlfriend has nothing to say when she leaves him.
People are emotional. In different historical periods and in different social environments, different people have experienced different things, so we cannot easily judge here, which approach must be correct, and no one has the right to give anything at any time. In absolute terms, even if there is a law, the law is only a contract drawn up by most people, and it will continue to change with the continuous development of history.
So in the end, the problem is still a problem, each has its own answer, and we also have different positions on different issues. I support the old policeman here, but on other issues, it may be the opposite. I think there is indeed a balance point. In everyone's heart, there is always a yardstick for judging value, and that is our own hearts. And what's interesting is that it really seems to be the things that can't be chosen, our family, our environment, our country, our race, our gender, that determines our measure of worth and who we are.
View more about Gone Baby Gone reviews
