When many people see this movie, they will definitely think of Harvard law professor Michael Sandel's public class "Justice: What Should I Do?" "In that video, I remember the professor joking to the students next to the stage, oh, let you push yourself and stop doing it? In reality, many people are full of benevolence, righteousness and morality. Once they are put into practice, they will wither. In the movie, the female pig's feet are hopelessly withered.
Should innocent people be sacrificed for the lives of many people? What is the bottom line for paying a due price for values? This is the question raised by the video.
The benevolence of the female FBI first caused 53 deaths and then tens of thousands of deaths. Her reason is that we are human, we can't do that, let the nuclear bomb explode. What can't be done? Can't hurt two temporarily innocent children, at least in front of her. So tens of thousands of innocent children died. Then the United States will start a war. Once the state apparatus is activated, more innocent people will be killed. The origin of everything starts with only two children. The female FBI has not figured out one thing, she has no right to play the role of tolerant. When the female FBI talked about the constitution, the male FBI hit the nail on the head: If the nuclear bomb exploded, there would be no constitution. The human nature and evil that the values of a society promise are also limited, and unlimited tolerance will breed unlimited evil.
Unwilling to do the dirty thing in her eyes, the dirty thing she didn't want to see happened in front of her, and the countless dirty things and the deaths of more innocent people that were about to be triggered by the failure of torture, the female FBI chose the former. The female FBI would rather choose the foreseeable fact that millions of people died than be a wicked person. It is more important not to bear guilt than to save others. This is in line with the monotheistic logic: if I kill you and I can go to heaven, then, I'm sorry. The female FBI is no different from many monotheists in the Middle Ages. Medieval believers killed people without guilt under the slogan of the creator, and she killed people without guilt under the slogan of humanity and morality. A living example is the premise that 53 people died. Next, the female FBI can still protect the two children in order not to bear the guilt (everyone knows what kind of people these two children will become when they grow up). Struggling in vain under contradictory values, this is the Western baggage that the director throws on us. In fact, we can use Eastern means to open it up.
Zhuang Ziyun is not benevolent. The greatest kindness seems to be unkind.
The female FBI caused a greater evil with Xiaoren, and H ended the evil with her own inhumanity. What H has done, will he not feel guilty? Certainly, but he will continue to do so, so that no greater evil will happen. For the lives of innocent people, H would rather do something that would allow him to live in purgatory for a lifetime and maybe go to hell after death. This person has the shadow of an Eastern saint. H understands that he has no right to decide the lives and deaths of millions of people. He can only decide the lives and deaths of a few people in front of him. He has no ability to explain the value of things. The female FBI is much more hypocritical.
There is a story I can’t remember clearly. It’s about a monk who crossed the river and got on the boat. He found that there was a thief who robbed ships. The monk could tell other people that other people would kill the thief so that others would commit the crime. Killed, because the thief had not committed the crime at the time, and the monk can leave it alone, so that the thief will commit the murder. Choose the former or the latter, and some people will fall into hell for committing the murder. What did the monk do later? Woolen cloth? He stepped forward by himself and killed the thief. The Eastern way of thinking is not to be a judge of values, but to be a bearer. Westerners have thrown out a baggage that allows you to judge right and wrong, make you confused, make you confused, and make you collapse, but our ancestors of the East have told us in various ways many years ago that right and wrong in the world are inherently difficult to judge. And we do not necessarily have the power to judge, we only have the ability to bear the consequences. The things mentioned in the Harvard professor's lecture may have been understood by our ancestors more than 2,000 years ago.
During the First World War, a British soldier named Henry Tandy spared a German wounded soldier. This German wounded soldier later triggered World War II. Countless people died at the hands of this ambitious madman, as everyone knows. His name is Hitler. I give this example not to say that the British soldier should kill Hitler (because no one can travel through time and see the future), but to say that everyone is actually unable to make a thorough right or wrong judgment on one thing, female FBI What is done is this kind of overweight.
In the latter part of World War II, Japan refused to surrender. American policymakers decided to drop the atomic bomb, and 200,000 people died. If the American policymakers have the benevolence of women, they feel that throwing the atomic bomb is against humanity and fights Japan desperately. It can be foreseen. More people will die in Japan, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the United States. Two hundred thousand people, one hundred thousand times as many as the two kids in the movie, the decision makers still did. Because only war can strip away the hypocrisy of human nature and values, hysterical reflection in peacetime is as light as bullshit.
If we look at this movie in a Western way of thinking, it will indeed cause us to fall into a contradictory situation. Therefore, we might as well deviate from Western values and examine it with what our ancestors once said.
View more about Unthinkable reviews
