Should Terrorists' Children Be Killed? Many people stand for H, because the agents and soldiers of government agencies are responsible for the public. In the face of two innocent children who are unarmed, only if they act ruthlessly can they know the location of the nuclear bomb and save the lives of tens of millions of people. This is their duty and mission.
This raises a key question: the difference between professional responsibility and personal humanity - are you your profession?
For example, the duty of a soldier is to obey orders, no matter who is under the gun, the commander said that the gun must be fired. But after a non-existent event in the Chinese dynasty, people said, "You can shoot, or you can raise the muzzle of the gun by two centimeters. The distance between two centimeters is human nature." It turns out that we don't want soldiers to become killing machines. , hope they still have humanity.
Obviously, professional personality is the alienation of human nature and the abstraction of reason, you are not equal to your profession.
However, everything you do in your career needs to be done by you as a living person. "Alive" means that you have a conscience, humanity, and empathy. Many times, professional rationality will require you to go against your conscience, such as H's work in this film.
Yes yes, as a member of the secret service, as long as you think "rationally", in order to save those millions of people, you must kill (or at least threaten to kill) innocent and defenseless children! But when you really face them, use the hands that once touched your own child to take a cold sharp blade and stab the crying child in front of you, you must face the torture and condemnation of your own conscience.
Should the children of terrorists be killed? As a theoretical discussion, we may be able to draw conclusions easily, but we all know that in practice, certainly not everyone can stab that knife.
When I saw the movie, I suddenly remembered Luo Ji and Cheng Xin in "The Three-Body Problem". When I was reading, I always hated the virgin bitch Cheng Xin, but after watching this movie, I suddenly understood Helen.
Maybe such a person with a high integrity and kindness index is not naturally suitable for this kind of occupation that requires all kinds of extremes. However, if our soldiers and officials are extremely professional personalities, they are 100% obedient to the rules and orders. , Then in an event like the absence of the Celestial Dynasty, who else can we expect to raise the muzzle of the gun aimed at the students by two centimeters? ? ?
If it is said that a person's behavior cannot be based solely on personal conscience or compliance with the requirements of duties, and the specific issue should be judged concretely, then, where is the boundary? What are the criteria for distinguishing terrorist incidents from non-existent incidents? Most importantly, is the fact that you rely on to make these judgments true, or is it just someone who wants you to believe it? Do you have the time and opportunity to test your judgment? When you think about it this way, the problem is more complicated.
Back to the original question, should the children of terrorists be killed? I think in real life, someone must kill them, like H; there must be someone who can't bear it (even if they can only mourn silently), like Helen.
People like H are like human armor, which improves our chances of survival, but it is Helen's weakness that gives us the meaning of survival and the light of humanity.
View more about Unthinkable reviews
