Good creation always has such magic power - when I sat down to watch the play, I was still calmly debating the rhythm of the characters' praise and criticism, complaining that "the mastermind behind the scenes in British dramas is always the alphabet soup, which seems to be really ancestral" - but gradually It just loses its composure; it's so close, so relevant, that any discussion of the acting, the scenes, the language of the shots is irrelevant, and I can't tell the leeway for anything other than the subject. After the story is told, I retire, leaving me alone, deeply immersed in the aftermath of the strong earthquake.
The theme is: Is unscrupulousness wrong for "just ends"? Or, can "truth" be discounted for "goodness"?
1
There is such a story in "Confucius' Family Language": Confucius took his disciples to travel around the world, trapped between Chen and Cai, and had no food for seven days. Zigong managed to get a stone of rice quietly and quietly. Yan Hui was cooking, and by chance a piece of black ash fell from the beam into the pot. Ziyuan scooped out the rice and ash and ate it. When Zigong saw it, he was very unhappy. Complained to the master that the same door was stealing food. A saint is of course a saint. He believes in the character of his disciples, so he asked him to ask, clarifying the whole story and dispelling everyone's doubts. From this, Confucius made his famous remark: "What you believe is your eyes, but your eyes are not credible; what you rely on is your heart, but your heart is not enough. The disciple remembers it, and it is not easy to know people."
It's a really good story. The same fact, the cause and effect are different, the right and wrong may be completely opposite. Seeing is not necessarily believing, and the truth is difficult to know for sure - this is a rare antidote for habitually correct Confucian scholars.
There is only one small problem: the authenticity of "Confucius' Family Yu" is a famous koan case , at least since the Song Dynasty, it has been clearly designated as a "fake book", and was expelled from the "Classical Department" to the "Zibu". Mr. Gu Jiegang said that it was a Chinese The late great Confucian King Su pretended to be a work that "has no value in gaining trust". However, the two Western Han tombs excavated in the 1970s both unearthed bamboo slips called "Confucianist Words", the content of which is similar to today's "Jiayu". As a result, "Wang Su's fiction" is not very tenable. .
You see, history is crazy here : in order to illustrate the truth that "what you see and hear is not necessarily reliable, don't believe it", someone may have made up a joke - dry righteousness is not easy to sell, and the sages act in person. It’s more vivid, it’s hard to remember it, and it’s hard to be unconvinced; later generations questioned whether the story itself was fake—the story of fighting fakes is false—this reduces the credibility of this theory, or Instead, add a strong footnote to it?
I don't know how you guys are, but I want to flip the table.
However, whether "truth" is more important or "goodness" is more important, it may not be a problem in the mind of the most holy master. In the view of this staunch defender of the ceremonial order, history books are just a tool. As long as it can make "chaotic ministers and thieves fear" and write "Spring and Autumn" according to "correct" values, it is a more legitimate approach. In fact, the "Dong Hu Zhizhi" that he strongly praised is not to praise the historian for respecting the facts, but to commend him for not being afraid of power and insisting on "righteousness". Please note that "Zhao Dun killed his lord" recorded by Dong Hu at the risk of death is not a fact : according to "Zuo Zhuan", Duke Ling of Jin was tyrannical and persuaded by Zhao Dun, and Duke Ling of Jin repeatedly plotted to kill Zhao Dun. However, Zhao Dun was forced to flee. In the end, Zhao Dun's younger brother Zhao Chuan killed Yi Gao, and Zhao Dun returned to Jin to continue ruling. With such a long list of causes and consequences, Mr. Zhibi is only willing to remember "Zhao Dun killed his lord", because he believes that "the son is the emperor, he will not cross the border, but he will not seek thieves, and who is not the son?" - "You If you escaped without leaving the border, and when you come back, you will not hold the perpetrators accountable, saying that you did not participate in the conspiracy, that you lied to a ghost? Are you wronged that you murdered the king? I see the essence through the phenomenon!” In the eyes of Donghus, value judgment is a necessary component of historical narrative, even the most important component. It can not only have, but can—even should—reconstruct historical narrative under the guidance of values. Confucius is exactly the The most influential practitioner of this historical ethical principle, Mr. Sima Shishi, who wrote "Tongjian", is even more brilliant. Cut, choose, and arrange historical materials at will according to one's own needs. Sima Guang did not hide it at all. After all, "Zizhitongjian" - people have said that this is an ideological teaching material early in the morning.
In all fairness, according to today's academic ethics, these historians have failed. Facts go to facts, and values go to values. A historian’s one-third of an acre is the former. It is the historian’s sacred duty to find out “what happened”; it is already extremely cautious to speculate reasonably about “what happened before and after.” As for judging merits and demerits based on this fact, it is the next step, and it is also someone else's business. Of course, neither the selection of historical materials nor the way of writing can completely escape the historian's own value orientation. However, taking one's own prejudice (everyone's values must be prejudiced) as a limitation that needs to be vigilant and overcome is still an excuse to dress up history arbitrarily. , this is not a question of competence, it is a question of conduct. If you add, delete, and rewrite according to your own needs in the step of "getting out the facts", and use some tricks of "small words and big justice", isn't this abusing the public power of the right to speak in historical records for your own personal gain? Is it wrong to say a word of dereliction of duty and exploiting power for personal gain? Master, what is the originator?
Yes, they are not seeking "selfishness", they are defending "righteousness" - coincidentally, the church thought so when Bruno was burned to death, and the Nazis also thought so when they cleaned up the "inferior races", and the plane crashed into the Twin Towers I thought so too. "Righteousness", how many sins lie in your name!
"Goodness" is subjective, conditional, and relative; what you believe in "goodness" and what I believe in "goodness" can be very different. Without the "true" soil, no one can guess whether the seeds of "goodness" will bear the flowers of "evil". No matter how "noble" the "purpose" is, it is not a valid reason for "fake".
2
Video fraud / head transplant / Deepfake is not a new trick. I mean, the technology is definitely new, but evidence falsification is as old as human history. "There are fakes in black and white"? I'm sorry, history books are the hardest hit area for fraud; the photos are not saved, I'm not talking about Photoshop - the picture on the left below is almost a Lincoln standard image, who can guess it is fake? Lincoln's head was placed on the body of Senator John Calhoun (pictured right).
Recordings can be faked. In the first episode of the second season of "The Battle of the Bone", in order to prove to the heroine that the phone recording can be forged, the friends used the software to let Comrade Wang come to the scene for an indescribable phone call. In theory, as long as there is about 40 minutes of audio material from someone to train the AI, you can let the TA say any sentence "personally".
DNA can be faked, and it's surprisingly easy. According to the "Daily Mail" report in 2009, Israeli scientists found that it is possible to remove the DNA of all blood cells in a blood sample of someone (let's call him Zhang San), and then take the DNA from the hair of another person (Li Si), a large amount of After replication, it was injected into the blood cells of Zhang San's blood sample, so that the blood sample evidence pointed to Li Si. The scary thing is that this is not cutting-edge technology, "any undergraduate biology student can do it". "Iron evidence of DNA" doesn't seem to be so mountain-like anymore.
As for handwriting, fingerprints, black boxes, carbon 14... The form of evidence you can say has a history of fraud. The battle between anti-counterfeiters and counterfeiters is like a monster-fighting game that can never be cleared. People stubbornly believe that the next new technology can solve fakes once and for all, but they never fail to lose to the next ingenuity of the crooks.
In this way, Deepfake is nothing to make a fuss about, but it just makes the "surveillance video" untrustworthy.
Allow me to deduce one step further: if artificial intelligence and deep learning can make video fakes seamless, what can virtual reality and brain-computer interfaces do? What if one day, people's perception of the world can also be faked? What if The Matrix was actually a documentary?
3
In the early years, I believed that tools and means are neither good nor bad, as long as the purpose is good, and it is for the greater benefit of more people, there is nothing wrong with the method used.
Stealing, wiretapping, extortion, robbery, arson, extorting confessions by torture, killing people, provoking a civil war with foreigners’ large sums of money, getting bombing information ahead of time and watching the city crash and die. I won't name names, but none of this is hypothetical.
If that's the case, what's the big deal with fake surveillance footage? Even if people are trapped in crime and murdered, it is only a last resort. "This is a war" and they want to destroy our beliefs, our freedom and our way of being, so what's wrong with fighting the enemy at all costs in order to protect our fellow citizens and our country, and to defend the values we live in? They do everything they can, do we still have to bind our hands and feet and wait to die? If you use extraordinary means at extraordinary times, the saint will forgive you.
What's more, Correction is not a fake, but "truth reenacted" - a reenactment of the truth that happened. This is not a lie, this is the more essential truth.
What's more, the people can make it invisible, " The public is content in their ignorance, and a lot better that way. " - everything to the people may not be good for them, sometimes ignorance is a kind of luck, you As long as you know that your time is quiet, someone will carry the burden for you, and you only need to know that your innocent conscience is someone who makes difficult choices for you.
Are you a little persuaded? Do you think that the female lawyer and her comrades in arms are really a little trouble-free, overly naive, a little bit of cheating, and self-destructing the Great Wall?
There is only one small problem: on the opposite side, I can also come up with a reasonable defense——
On the surface, Correction just "transforms" intelligence into evidence, which is harmless. However, it is precisely this "minor foul" that may shake the foundation of the normal functioning of society. Because credibility is the life of public power, and the paradox of "trust" is that as long as there is one exception, it may collapse suddenly, and it will be difficult to restore it.
After melamine, how long will it take to rebuild the confidence of Chinese people in domestic dairy products? How long will it take to rebuild American minority confidence in vaccines after Tuskegee syphilis trial in Alabama? How long will it take to rebuild people's confidence in public health information after concealment in the early days of SARS? ——The last question I will: Need a new crown.
In this sense, a non-serious foul is an ant's nest that broke the embankment for thousands of miles. In small terms, any suspect can claim that surveillance evidence is false and that he was framed; in large terms, the faltering of credibility is fertile ground for rumors and conspiracy theories , QAon, Alt-truth, Birds are Fake, Earth is flat, 5G causes COVID, all these incredible things come from their own origin, and the Alphabet Soup is to blame - since Prism is real, Benghazi is real, why can't these be?
Therefore, the Hannahs are using the courage of the mantra as a vehicle to defend the last long embankment that maintains the operation of society. They firmly believe that even in the face of the enemy, the principle cannot be discarded; to accept the enemy's logic and use unscrupulous means to confront unscrupulous means, that is complete surrender .
What's more, the "expedient inflection" of the basic principle is to leave a hole for the powerful to abuse the rules. Put 10,000 hearts, someone will definitely drill. After all, how can there be "purpose" and "motive", if you don't set rules for "means", it will always be leeks who pay the bill.
I believe that few people can't understand this comparison of cost and benefit. But "Ends justify means" is still believed by so many people, because the subjects of costs and benefits are not the same group of people.
What does "loss of credibility" matter? Anyway, the current crisis is over; what does Guantanamo torture and Prism invasion of privacy matter? I'm safer anyway. What's the point of shutting up discordant voices? Anyway, public issues have nothing to do with my life, even if it is related, it is better to shut up and stop losses if you speak hard. If other leeks can live, so can I.
No problem. If my heart is blocked and my throat is tight, it may be something wrong with me.
View more about The Capture reviews
