The storyline is actually quite simple. In an anti-terrorist operation co-operated by the United Kingdom, the United States and Kenya, an opportunity for several major terrorists (one of whom was a white British woman) to get together was successfully captured. What is even more dangerous is that these major terrorists are apparently planning two Suicide attack, two suicide vests in a bedroom. In short, first of all, this is a very rare opportunity to get rid of several major terrorists. Secondly, if these terrorists are not removed immediately and the suicide vest is taken away, there will be two terrorist incidents, and it is difficult to estimate how many people were killed or injured (at least 80 people are estimated in the film). Therefore, this operation must have ended successfully with the launch of the "Hellfire" missile by the drone.
But the actual choice is not easy.
Just as the drone operator was about to press the launch button, he found a few-year-old girl selling bread just outside the house's wall. If attacked with missiles, coupled with two suicide bombs, the explosion is bound to affect the little girl. The operator hesitated, the female colonel in command hesitated, the general hesitated, the attorney general hesitated, of course, the female political adviser who has always upheld humanitarianism has more to say, can denounce the shamelessness of these warmongers, can use justice Supreme judges the illegality of this action.
Commander Colonel Powell is in a hurry. As a front-line commander, she knew too well that such a good opportunity was rare, not to mention two suicide bombs? Furthermore, as the commander, she knew that the British army was not as good as it used to be.
The drones and missiles for this operation were provided by the Americans, the ground forces were supported by Kenya, the agents were the informants developed by the US CIA in Somalia, and the command bases of the drones were at the US military bases in Africa (the authors speculate that no Confirmed), the operation took place in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, and this operation was concerned by the highest level of Britain, the United States and Kenya. Since the US Secretary of State in the film plays table tennis in China, China has also become an absent participant. In such a big situation, only the commander is a British. It can be seen that the military power of the "Empire on which the Sun Never Sets" is more like an empty shell.
Colonel Powell sent ground agents to buy all the little girl's bread. Unfortunately, the ground agents were spotted and almost caught. It is obviously impossible to think of a clever way to get the little girl to leave as soon as possible, and the interruption of the monitoring of terrorists makes the matter even more urgent.
How to do? Is it to sacrifice a little girl, or let the terrorists leave with suicide bombers, with more people at risk in the future?
This emerges a problem discussed in modern Western ethics. In his book "The Theory of Justice", Rawls of Harvard University asked a question: A madman tied five innocent people to a tramway. An out-of-control tram was heading towards them and was about to run over them in moments. Fortunately, you can pull a lever and send the tram to another track. But there's a problem, that lunatic tied a guy on that other track too. Should one sacrifice one or five?
The replacement into the movie is the life of the little girl and the lives of more people. Which side is more important?
Angela, a female political adviser in London, drinking coffee and looking at the screen, obviously wants to uphold justice and can't hurt the little girl's life just because of this rare opportunity. Of course, she is not the kind of pedantic intellectual who only shouts slogans and endorses the concept of books. In addition to the noble pursuit of justice, she also considers public opinion. If the public knew that the little girl was hurt in order to seize this opportunity, it would definitely cause an uproar, question the anti-terrorist operation, and hold all those involved in the operation accountable.
Angela's words are not groundless, a drowned Syrian boy washed up on the beaches of Europe, thus reversing the refugee policy of the whole Europe. Even many women who sympathize with refugees are silent when they are sexually assaulted by eastern refugees, just because they are afraid of affecting the image of the refugees. The operator of the drone is a young college graduate who has not yet witnessed the brutality of war. He is a representative of young Europeans, so he cannot press the button to launch.
Colonel Powell was helpless. Finally, she thought of a way. Because of the people's demand for justice, not only legal counsels are involved in each military operation, but also professional technicians are required to assess the scope and degree of injury. The person who made this assessment was right next to Colonel Powell, very well aware of the difficulties she had had in tracking terrorists over the years, and very well aware that this opportunity was fleeting. The two men worked together to change the damage level data. A lower value made Angela, a righteous and awe-inspiring female political adviser, feel a little more at ease and agreed to launch the missile.
After a missile was launched, two terrorists were killed and the little girl was injured. However, due to the change of data and the delay of time, there was still one terrorist who was not killed. So another missile hits and the terrorist is done, but this time the little girl lost her life completely.
Finally, in the military intelligence room in London, Angela sarcastically said to the general commanded: "It's shameful to do this, you only gave orders to keep your own position." However, the general said calmly: "I personally participated in five incidents. The aftermath of a suicide attack, right next to the body at the scene. What you saw today with coffee and cookies was really ugly, but what they did was even worse. Never tell a soldier that he doesn't understand war The price.”
In fact, it’s more than war, a country’s politics and international national games don’t pay a huge moral price, they are all beautiful on the surface but dirty on the inside. It's just that ordinary people enjoy a peaceful life of drinking coffee and eating biscuits. They not only hope that everything is not so "ugly" and that everything is not "dirty" to offend their moral sense, and hope that the world will achieve harmony. But it is difficult for them to imagine that the injustice, violence, and war that are far away from themselves have a close relationship with them. For example, I hope that the coffee I drink every day is cheap and affordable, but I don’t know that Kenyan coffee farmers are struggling to get enough food and clothing; I hope that food, clothing, housing and transportation are cheaper and more convenient, but it has become the driving force for factories in distant countries to hire child labor.
Our world is a closely related world, an interdependent world. If your standard of living exceeds that of others, it must be beggar-thy-neighbor, and it must be conditional on exploiting and squeezing other people's lives. In the past, when we were in a country, another part of the country was the target of oppression, so there were classes in the country. Now that we are on the same earth, the people of another country are the objects of oppression and the people of another country are the objects of exploitation. If there is oppression, there will be resistance, and if there is exploitation, there will be robbing the poor and helping the rich. This is justice for the weak. The best resistance of the weak is undoubtedly violence, and then terrorism, but for the victims of terrorism, killing terrorists without mercy is justice. As for self-righteous bystanders, justice is not to let the innocent suffer, even if this is only theoretically possible.
It can be seen that everyone speaks of justice, but justice is at a loss. However, the greatest voice for justice is still in the mouths of university professors and ivory tower intellectuals. Their justice is more than just vague words. They can reason logically, analyze and deconstruct, and finally build justice into an insurmountable moral city-state, a utopia. That's why they came up with the "trolley problem" tricky, and in the verbal debate, deducing that "sacrifice the minority to achieve the majority" is not justice.
If there is so much justice, which one is justice?
Is it justice to argue about what justice is?
Before the Brexit referendum, those who supported Brexit said that the EU shackles the freedom and democracy of the British people, and those who supported staying in the EU said that only the EU can ensure the prosperity of the United Kingdom and continue the freedom and democracy of the United Kingdom. These disputes are very similar to the disputes between the civil officials in the feudal dynasties of China over various reform measures. Some say that the ancestral system cannot be changed, because it is not only the ancestral system, but also inherited from the ancient sages; some hope to reform, because the ancestors and the ancients Saints and sages have said that they must change with time. The same reason has become a defense for two completely different things.
A sarcastic but bitter smile appeared in the reincarnation of history. As the first country in the West to implement a civil service system, Britain is precisely the civil service system it learned from China. The rise and fall of England is also similar to China's feudal dynasties. First, from the emperor to the common people, they are proud of the material and culture of the empire, and then because of their pride in the dynasty, a moral utopian quarrel arises, and they fall into the madness of collective sexual obscenity. Finally, the class divides and declines in the violence of the bottom or foreigners. .
Therefore, talking about justice itself is an unjust thing. The justice that everyone talks about is limited by self-cognition and creates different standards. Justice should have become a public concept, but it has become a private conjecture.
Everyone is not God, not the creator, not the master of this world. The very existence of the individual is not within the realm of justice. So, what qualifications do people have to judge what justice is? Just as justice is another name for fairness, what standard can be called fairness? When a man speaks of justice in his own right, the individual has become the judge of the whole world. But if you read poetry and books and have a lot of experience, you can judge the right and wrong of the whole world? Is justice the justice of the judge, or the justice of the judged?
Justice will never be a standard, a concept, an unbreakable iron law. After watching "Eye in the Sky", you will definitely guess that the little girl's father, a moderate believer, will definitely become a terrorist. When he broke into the "innocent" crowd with dynamite, would you say he was just or unjust?
This article is created by the private WeChat public account "Guanshiying" to create
more wonderful film reviews, please scan the QR code below
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
