These movies give the answer to the shocking question of ＂Qi Pa Shuo＂

Special feature of 1905 film network After five years, the sequel and the second part of the prequel series will finally meet the mainland audience this Friday. Can’t you wait to go to the cinema to see if the great director ridley scott is body of work? Don’t worry, please enjoy the following trailer first and feel the explosive tension and extreme panic in the film.

　

Although all kinds of alien eggs, face-hugging insects and chest-broken people are "beautiful" to the extreme,Although the "wrinkled version" of the biochemical man played by "Shark of Law" is so handsome that he has no friends, what makes me hold my breath most is the paragraph at the beginning of the trailer.

　

Karin, the crew member, brought her infected companions back to the Contract, and Farris, who stayed on the ship, put them in the medical warehouse to ensure the safety of the ship. For the life of more than 20 people on the whole ship, whether to sacrifice Karin or not, Farris outside the door is suffering. If you walk into the cinema, you will see that Farris failed to bear the pain of conscience and opened the door, but nearly half of the crew were killed by aliens.

　

Similar choices are common in science fiction films and disaster films, such as the one released not long ago.Do you want to rescue the microbiologist Hugh from the laboratory? Do you watch the engineer played by Ryan Reynolds implode by the alien Mars? In order to prevent the monster from returning to the space station, the commander chooses to sacrifice himself, and the medical officer played by Jake Gyllenhaal chooses to die with it in order to keep the monster away from the earth.

In order to protect most people, should we sacrifice the lives of a few people and control the losses to a minimum?

The iron man in the movie sent the nuclear bomb out of the earth alone for the benefit of all mankind. This great personal heroism is really admirable.But if you’re on the boat full of explosives tied by clowns, can you press that button and trade the life of another criminal for your own life? Similarly, in the first season of "Qi Pa Shuo", the debate on whether to "blow up Jia Ling". Cai Kangyong gave up his sponsor for the first time, because 63 of the 100 spectators chose to sacrifice Jia Ling to save the other 116 people.

Having said that, you may have understood the theme we are going to discuss today, that is, the famous thought experiment — —"tram puzzle" (also known as tram paradox).

　

A madman tied five innocent people to the tram track, and a runaway tram was coming towards them. You can pull the switch and let the tram go to another track, but the madman tied a man to the other track. Considering the above situation, will you pull the switch?

I believe that most people will choose to pull, because if we have to make a choice, it is definitely better to sacrifice one person than five.

　

If we change the situation, the runaway tram rushes towards five innocent people, but there is no switch and no second track. When you pass by the bridge and see this scene, the only way to stop the tram is to push the fat man next to you off the bridge (we don’t discriminate against fat people, blame the philosopher Judith Tom), let him get stuck in the track and stop the tram. If you can do it, use the fat man’s life to save five other people.

In this situation, I believe that most people can’t get off the bridge. It is the same as saving five lives with one life. Why can’t we accept the second situation? What is the difference between it and the first situation?

Is it because in the second situation, Mr. Fat was pushed down by ourselves, while in the first situation, we just pulled the switch and didn’t personally kill the poor man tied to the track?

So if Mr. Fat stands on a trap door and you control his fate through a mechanism similar to a switch, can you easily pull down the switch?

You think the situation we gave is too extreme. If in real life, there must be a solution to kill two birds with one stone. Just like in "The Dark Knight", passengers on both ships didn’t press the button, but there was no explosion.

Indeed, the "tram puzzle" was put forward by the British philosopher Filipa Foote in the 1960s, which was used to explore the dilemma in the field of ethics (also called moral philosophy). Later, it was extended by the American philosopher Judith Tom and appeared in several versions.

But coincidentally, in Los Angeles in 2013, the "tram problem" actually came true. It is incredible that even the numbers are exactly the same:In the face of the runaway tram, Ms. Jones pulled the switch in order to save five lives, but it caused the death of Mr. Farley on another track, so Ms. Jones was sued in court. So do you still think that the "tram problem" is just a thought experiment? Is Ms Jones guilty or innocent?

Let’s go back to the question of "the tram and the fat man". What makes us willing to sacrifice one person to save five people in the first situation, but unwilling to sacrifice Mr. Fat to save those five people in the second situation?

Because when pulling the switch, we didn’t mean to kill that person. He was the result that we had to accept in order to save most people, but Mr. Fat was deliberately pushed off the bridge by us, and he became a tool for us to save people.

This involvesSt. Thomas Aquinas’s "double effect principle" means that while hoping to get good results, it is often impossible to avoid bad results, that is, "collateral damage".For example, bombing the enemy’s military fortress can quickly end the war and avoid the loss of lives on a larger scale, but bombing often comes with the death of innocent civilians around, but this has to be accepted.

The person in the first situation is to save the collateral damage of five lives, but the "double effect principle" does not apply to the second situation, because Mr. Pang’s death is not necessary to accept, and he is regarded as a tool for us to achieve our goals. This kind of instrumentalization of human beings is unacceptable to morality in any case, even if five lives are lost. Because of moral requirements,Bad effects should not be used as a tool to achieve good results..

Why can’t humans be used as tools? This involves two schools of thought in the field of ethics — —"effect theory" and "obligation theory".

Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher.

Effect theory, also known as utilitarianism, is represented by British philosophers Bentham and Mill, who believe thatThe moral value of behavior is only measured by the result of behavior.To put it simply, if an action can maximize the well-being and minimize the harm of the people concerned, it should be done. As most of us hold, the idea that "one death is better than five deaths" comes from the benefit theory.

Although the benefit theory is widely accepted by most people, it cannot be a universal value, because it often means the tyranny of the majority over the minority. For example, in 1884, the "Queen of England v. Dudley and Stephens" shocked the world:

An English cruise ship, Margaret, was shipwrecked, and four crew members escaped to the life raft. After 19 days of suffering without water and food, 18-year-old Parker couldn’t help drinking seawater and became unconscious. The other three crew members took the opportunity to kill him and survived on his blood and meat until the 24th day before being rescued. After returning to England, they were tried for murder.

This kind of cannibalism for survival is definitely unacceptable to morality, so the "deontology" represented by Kant emphasizes that,The moral value of behavior lies not only in its result, but also in the behavior itself.. That is to say, no matter how much goodness can be produced, killing, torture, stealing and other acts are unconditionally wrong, and their value cannot be enhanced through the calculation of costs and benefits. This has safeguarded our human dignity,Prevent our interests or lives from being sacrificed because of the public interest..

Philosopher Kant

The "deontology" has also been implemented in law. For example, the laws of many countries expressly stipulate that evidence obtained by improper means cannot be used as evidence in court. For example, the testimony obtained by extorting a confession by torture, even if it is correct, cannot be used as evidence to convict the defendant.

Therefore, according to the principle of "deontology", the above-mentioned Ms. Jones in Los Angeles, although heroically saved five people, was found guilty by the court, although it was a virtual sentence of three reprieves. Because the judge thinks that Ms. Jones has no right to decide the life and death of others instead of God, and she has no right to deprive Mr. Farley of his right to live.

If this is the case, what should we do in a similar situation, and what is the right and moral way to do it? Should we just stand by and watch?

Let’s consider this situation. Suppose you plan to drown your brother who shares the inheritance with you in the swimming pool, but when you come to his house, you find that he has a sudden heart attack in the swimming pool, so you let him drown slowly.The result is the same as you planned, but obviously you are less condemned legally and morally. Why?Because killing is worse than letting people die, because killing must also include letting people die.

But this does not mean that it is right to let anyone die. In the face of five lives in orbit, our inaction will also receive moral condemnation and legal sanctions. What if it’s yourself or your relatives and friends on the track? Can you really do nothing?

In fact, up to now, the "tram problem" is still unsolved, but this does not mean that this thought experiment is meaningless, because it always reminds us to be alert to "utilitarianism" and always remember that people are the end, not the means, just as Kant said: "No matter when you act, you should not only regard yourself as an end, but also the qualifications of others as human beings, and never use them just as a means."

References:

Thomas cathcart’s Tram Problem

Yves Bossart, If there is no today, will there be yesterday tomorrow? 》

Michael Sandel, Harvard Open Class — — Fairness and Justice "