1. Save 1 person, or save 5 people - save 5 people, if you can choose, of course, the more you save, the better
2. Kill 1 person, Or kill 5 people - kill 1 person, if you can choose, of course, the fewer people die, the better.
3. Killing 1 person (this person is the one who wants to kill the 5 people) can save 5 people - kill 1 person, he is a criminal, damn it.
4. Killing 1 person (innocent) can save 5 people who would otherwise die——? ? Why did that person die for others, he is innocent.
5. Killing 1 person (innocent) can save 5 million people who would have died - of course killing 1 person will make your conscience uneasy, but the life saved is enough to forgive yourself.
6. Killing 1 child (innocent) can save 5 million people who would have died——? ? Children are innocent and morally incompetent!
7. Killing 1 child (criminal's child) can save 5 million people who would have died——? ? The child is still innocent, still the moral threshold!
——Actually: when you see this, most people who watch the movie will say, of course, they have given up their children, so why not ask? !
——As everyone knows, it's because you didn't stand in front of those two innocent and frightened eyes, even the deputy man who was very skilled in cooperating with H's torture would go berserk because H's intention to attack the child, you can imagine, all of you How can someone who has never even picked up a butcher's knife and let go of chicken blood be cruel to two children.
[Summary of the conclusions of everyone's answers]
-1 person may hesitate to compare with 5 people, but will not hesitate to compare with 5 million people.
- The child is innocent, difficult to make a choice, and may give up the lives of 5 million people to avoid moral torture within himself.
-Keyboard hero in front of the screen:
Even a child can't compare with 5 million people, no matter how innocent, do it!
Back to the movie -
★The heroine thinks it is immoral to kill innocent children (of course it is), and in her mind, these two children are more innocent than the 10 million people who will die because of the crimes of terrorists. As a taxpayer-elected government official, she shied away from her responsibilities for fear of taking on the guilt of killing children. It cannot be said that she is immoral, and even if it causes irreversible and tragic consequences, she can only be held accountable for her dereliction of duty.
★The final tragedy comes from the wrong person standing in the decision-making position. This tragedy has nothing to do with human morality, but only with professional ethics. Anyone in that situation, looking at an innocent child, may not be able to stick out a butcher's knife, so that H finally gave the woman the chance to make a decision, when he saw that she was still firm in his moral values. , he was relieved, he finally found that there are still people in the world who have not become a cog part of the state machine like him (and are threatened by the state: flashback to two episodes-H rested and said to her when reading the heroine's profile that you did not Boyfriend doesn't have children.. good; and the most powerful official in the last room pointed a gun at H and said your children are in my hands.), while retaining the most essential brilliance of human nature. Because of this, he did not panic even if the suspect committed suicide in the end, but said to the heroine very indifferently: Happy cooperation.
★As for the role of the heroine, please quote the sentence of "morris.chen", it can't be more accurate -
"It's not just a matter of safety and compliance, Brody is also a reference to H's conscience. The
screenwriter arranged Brody to be more like A mirror to illuminate the audience. Or, Brody could be each of us.”
View more about Unthinkable reviews
