I still remember that there was a debate in "Wonderful Flower", there were 100 people on board A and 1 person on board B. Both ships had bombs, ship A exploded after a timed 20 minutes, and ship B did not. Give you a button, press it B ship immediately explodes, A ship time bomb cancels. It's up to you to decide whether to press or not. Pros: Press; Negative: Don't press.
It's a pity that this is the only debate topic in "Wonderful Flower" so far that has achieved "reasonable and clearer debate", because at the end of the debate, even the head of the opposition party, Cai Kangyong, turned his back, and no one would choose to press that button... In
this case, Inside the house is a human bomb about to launch a suicide attack, and outside the house is an innocent little girl selling naan. And the drone suspended in the air at the moment can immediately drop the bomb. Just press that button and kill the terrorist, and hundreds of innocent lives will be spared, but the little girl who sells naan outside the house will also lose her life. To press or not to press? The debate is very precisely extended to the film.
There has always been a debate between the so-called deontology and utilitarianism in ethics, and each has developed a different school of philosophy. Utilitarianism asserts that the actions that lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people are the right actions; deontology asserts that when people make moral choices, they must take obligations into account, and that the right and wrong of these actions are not determined by the consequences. One of the main features of deontology is that it does not judge good and evil according to the consequences of actions, and believes that the standard of moral judgment is only the motive of the action, that is, only the good will. Obedience to the good will is the benchmark for Gao Xiaosong and Cai Kangyong to define the good and evil of human nature, and it is the bottom line they believe that a civilized society should adhere to.
It is true that deontologists have no reason to condemn the value of "not doing well" for a person in a civilized society, but on the other hand, should deontologists stop morally judging group utilitarians in the narrow category? ? After all, planting good causes by oneself and bearing evil consequences with others is the self-righteous personal cultivation of modern civilization, but it is also another form of selfishness. Just like the General who finally ordered the detonation of the terrorist's lair, in the eyes of many civilized people, he was the culprit who killed innocent little girls, but he actually saved the lives of more innocent people. He is in my eyes. The most responsible hero in hell.
After the Paris terrorist attack, Trump once called Brussels a "hellhole", and countless young Western Europeans retorted on social media, praising the diversity and beauty of Brussels. When the police arrested the Paris terrorist suspect in Molenbeek who had been hiding for several months, and the subsequent series of bombings in Brussels, the entire social network was dead. From the Kathryn Steinle shooting of an illegal immigrant, to the Paris and Brussels bombings, to the Orlando gay bar terror attack. Trump often becomes the prophecy emperor. However, if there is a choice, I think even Trump with a big mouth may not like this kind of "success" at the cost of human life.
Just as the terrorist attack in Orlando is rampant, Democrats and the left media lit candles for the dead while strongly condemning Trump's remarks on Twitter. It was only when Obama and Hillary Clinton successfully directed Muslim issues in the United States to "gun control", described the terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS supporters as unhinged personal acts, and tried to whitewash their anti-terrorism policies. It's hard to see how difficult it is for political leaders to compete for cannibalism. In fact, neither Obama nor Hillary has any intention to truly solve the problem of extreme Muslims in the country. They divert the topic and the mud, and continue to bind other minorities and Muslims to the political ecology of the Democratic Party.
The mean is the pass of the mean, and the noble is the epitaph of the noble. If a country or nation engages in pluralism and ignores the inheritance of its own national culture, it is very likely to be replaced by other civilizations, and sadly, it will be replaced by barbarism. There are the Sumerian Dynasty, the ancient Greek civilization, the ancient Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, and then there are five unscrupulous China, the Mongolians destroy the Song Dynasty, the bad money drives out the good money, and the examples of barbarism defeating and even destroying civilization abound. Only nihilists would talk about repaying grievances with virtue, just like all kinds of weird things that frequently appear in Western Europe, their postmodern nihilism is terminally ill, and its decline is inevitable. Just hope the US doesn't follow in its footsteps.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
