Harvard University once held an open class on justice - "Justice".

The moral dilemma raised in it has always been a classic psychological paradigm in the field of moral research. For example, the famous tram problem was first proposed by philosopher Philip Ford in 1967, which triggered discussions on this issue in the fields of philosophy, ethics, psychology, cognitive science, etc.

The title is as follows:

If you see a tram that has lost control moving forward on the track, and there are five workers in the direction where the tram is driving. If the tram moves along the current track, these five workers will inevitably be hit and killed by the tram. There is only one way to save these five workers, that is, to turn the track, change the tram, and hit and kill another maintenance worker.

The classic moral dilemma is that the subjects make a choice on whether they will sacrifice one person to save multiple lives, and no matter which choice they make, it will cause a certain degree of moral conflict among the selectors.

And this often faces choices:

A: Adhere to principles

B: Break the rules

Harvard political scientist Kohlberg believes that in order to solve the dilemma in people's mind, people generally make two moral judgments:

A.: Moralist choice—

Moralism’s criterion for judging whether a behavior is correct or not depends on whether it complies with existing systems, laws or rules. In this way of thinking, the morality of the behavior is fixed and has nothing to do with the situation. This is a kind of moral thinking based on rules.

B.: Utilitarian choice—

Utilitarianism determines whether a behavior is moral or not depends on whether it conforms to the rules, but depends on whether the result of its behavior increases our "maximum happiness".

In other words, how to choose something and whether a certain behavior is desirable depends on the final result of the matter. In order to pursue the maximum benefit for most people, a few people should be sacrificed to save the majority.

Understand these two thinking from the tram example.

Utilitarianism. When you see that 5 or 1 person is killed, you directly choose to kill 1 person, because 1 person is better than 5 persons to die. Right, this is a simple arithmetic problem that elementary school students can do.

But in another scenario, a moving tram is still 5 workers, and disaster will happen when you continue to move forward. You happened to notice this scene on the overpass above the track. It is definitely too late to remind you, but there is a fat black man next to you eating and eating ugly. You can push him down to block the tram. His death can make the tram driver brake in advance, and the 5 workers will be fine.

How to choose?

No other student raised his hand to agree to push people to save people, and even those who support utilitarianism did not speak out.

The same sacrifice was to save 5 people, why did everyone’s choice make a 180-degree change? Just because the way to prevent it becomes a change with your own hands?

Everyone should have their own moral principles, which determine people's behavior and choices.

Back to the movie "Watcher", the Pharaoh in the movie is a typical consequentialist. At the end, he launched a nuclear attack in several big cities in the world, extermining more than 10 million people, because the smartest people in the world think that this is the right thing to sacrifice small righteousness to achieve great justice.

Standing opposite the Pharaoh is Rorschach, the representative of absolutism in the film, who never compromises.

Absoluteism is a traditional principle and a dominant principle of society. For example, the head can be cut off and blood can flow, and integrity cannot be lost. Some things cannot be measured by simple results of interests.

But on the surface, consequentialism is better than absoluteism, is it utilitarian and smooth? Just like the saying goes, you must be flexible and don’t be stubborn. The principles of acting can certainly be tenable.

But why does the principle and position change as the owner becomes himself?

Because consequentialism is always accompanied by sacrifice, but no one wants to be a victim, consequentialism often produces injustice. The so-called righteousness of sacrificing a small number of people to save most people is likely to be forced to sacrifice the weak groups at the bottom of society.

In other words, who wants to be a sacrifice?

Germany was defeated in World War I and the domestic economy was sluggish. Hitler stood up and waved his hand and sacrificed more than 6 million Jews to use their wealth to transfusion blood to the German economy. Most of them agreed with non-sacrificial victims, so everyone in the German people cheered and worshiped Hitler as a god.

From the perspective of consequentialism, this is also a sacrifice to achieve great justice. At least, Germany suddenly jumped out of the quagmire, and it also condensed the belief of the people and the enthusiasm of society to support the government is high.

For example, in the American anti-war movement, a member of the parliament called on the people to take American interests first, and the sacrifice of American soldiers in the war was great and glorious. A reporter asked the parliamentarian, where are the sons of your parliamentarians? Why not send them to the battlefield to win glory for the country?

For the sake of the regime, Bush quickly shifted conflicts and won over arms dealers. Because those politicians and arms dealers who advocated the most fierce war, their families and children did not have to go to the battlefield. They just sat in luxury houses, held dance parties, drank champagne, and counted the hard-earned money brought to them by the American foreign war.

This is also the so-called sacrifice in consequentialism. You are sacrificed, you are represented, and they make money.

Fortunately, the United States will swallow this bitter fruit, and the unfair rule of white supremacists at the beginning of its founding state has exploded and continued to stage a gunfight dream of 300 million people.

In "Watchman", it is the plot of the repression of morality vs. absolute morality.

Movies are the carrier of culture, and sometimes for stronger dramatic conflicts, they must be processed artificially.

More importantly, comics and movies are two different things.

Comics have always been niche, and only those who are interested will watch them, but movies usually attract more people to enter. You cannot expect people who have never read comics and have a difficult story background to understand without swearing after watching such a boring movie.

In other words, if you didn't understand it in advance, the movie talks about a kind of moral concept that does not conform to the American free and equal society and is not conducive to the construction of a harmonious society. How can it be accepted by the American public?

In fact, even if "Watcher" releases a three-hour edited version, its reputation will only rise. The box office is destined to fail because it is too niche. This is like there are so many specific groups watching ghost movies. If you have to invest more than one billion to make ghost movies, even if you please this group, the market limit is there, which can't go against the sky or change your fate.

If "Watchmen" can learn from ordinary Hollywood movies, add more commercial elements like the street truck machine gun strafing and chase battles, the White House and the Bridge, and add some big bang-like special effects, which may attract some viewers for visual enjoyment.

Unfortunately, there are no such elements in "Watchman". Because this is a work that deconstructs superheroes. How can we show the superpowers - superheroes can supervise the people, so who will superheroes superheroes? Who will guarantee justice and who will absolutely have no selfishness? "The Dark Knight" also discusses this and proposes that justice police outside the law cannot be accepted by society.

The two works are both DC products, but actually have many similarities. Unlike the previous happy justice superhero movies, the heroes in these two movies are not so perfect and just.

In the Dark Knight, Batman chose to save Rachel out of selfishness at the critical moment of saving people, but ended up falling into the trap of the clown, and even led to the hero Harvey, who should have guarded the city to fight crime, and became a two-faced criminal. In the end, he had to take the blame for Harvey. The criminal turned into a hero, the hero turned into a criminal, and he built a "just" Gotham through lies.

Nolan's version of Batman is flawed, and justice is not so perfect. However, it is these flaws and imperfections that make the movie appear more real, more human, and closer to the audience to capture their hearts.

Because a righteous hero who is too perfect will make the audience feel false, and in "The Dark Knight" still maintains the mainstream value spirit of society and can be accepted by the audience.

"Watcher" is a pure analysis of too much, which is not good for the audience's viewing experience.

The vast majority of people at the bottom of the United States do not need a movie to tell them what the dark side of society and the ugliness of human nature are, because they have seen too many things in their daily lives, education issues, community security and even the distribution of police forces.

In a country that does not control guns and shoots at any time, how humane do you expect the people to have?

What they need is a placebo, an anesthetic, a moment of spiritual pleasure, and a confidence to continue facing difficulties in life. The government and the media also need a just and positive energy movie to calm the society and lead the people.
Chapter completed!