The name of this book is Strange Cave Case, which tells the story of a five-person expedition to explore a limestone cave. Unfortunately, during the expedition, a landslide occurred and huge stones fell to cover their only exit. The five men had to sit down near the cave and wait for help. Fortunately, they were well prepared before they came to explore. They not only left the exploration address in the Exploration Association, but also brought wireless devices to keep in touch. The only regret is that there is not enough food.
Because they didn't go home at the specified time, their families contacted the secretary of the Association for Science and Technology because they were afraid. According to the address they left before departure, the rescuers came near the cave. However, landslides continue to occur, and it is difficult to continue the cleaning work. In addition, 10 rescuers were killed in the rescue process, the rescue funds have been exhausted, and the rescue work is in trouble.
At this time, five explorers were also in crisis. Due to lack of food, the team members are hungry and there is no energy source to supplement them in the cave. Everyone is restless and malnourished. Finally, on the twentieth day of being trapped, I often contacted the search and rescue personnel by radio. It is in the dialogue between search and rescue personnel that it will take at least ten days if they are rescued. It is impossible to support them for ten days when they run out of ammunition and food. In order to get a positive answer, Captain Serena asked the doctor who accompanied the search and rescue team, can people live for ten days without food? The answer is no, unwilling Serena asked how likely it is if they sacrifice a player to maintain the status quo and whether they can support the arrival of rescuers. The answer is yes, even if it is cruel.
In the following story, Serena proposed to decide who was eaten by throwing dice, which fully demonstrated its fairness. However, at the last minute of the dice, Serena broke her word. He thinks that although this proposal is a stopgap measure, it is too "terrible" to wait for a week and can no longer be implemented. This time, the friends were unhappy and accused him of going back on his word and insisting on continuing to roll the dice to decide his fate. Finally Serena's partner rolled the dice for him, and of course he acquiesced. No one knows what his mood was at that time.
At the end of the story, the expedition members were rescued, but there were only four people. They were hospitalized for some time because of malnutrition. After leaving the hospital, he was accused of murdering Captain Serena.
The next plot is the climax of the whole book, and it is also a topic we need to discuss. Whether the four rescued players are guilty or innocent, good or evil. What would you do if it were you? Similarly, the book also puts forward three viewpoints, which we will elaborate separately.
First of all, they are guilty. Because even under the law of "emergency asylum", some judges think their behavior is "emergency asylum" excessive. Violation of the right to life of others should be sentenced to death. Here, let's talk about what "emergency asylum" is. This means that when a legal right is in danger, there is no way to protect a larger legal right at the expense of another smaller legal right. The right to life is the greatest right. In this incident, some people violated another person's right to life in order to protect their own lives. This is an excessive act of "emergency asylum", just like a movie I watched some time ago. In order to quickly find the kidnapped bank tycoon, several policemen used excessive means, resulting in the death of an insider, and finally they were severely punished by the law. This is a typical accident that causes others to die in order to maintain one's safety, that is, excessive law enforcement. Similarly, in the view of the judge who thought the expedition members were guilty, the four expedition members also made the same mistake, ignoring the lives of others for their own lives, especially when the victims refused, and still enforced the proposal of "deciding who was eaten".
In the judge's view, they are selfish and heartless, and their life is supreme, that is, their nature is evil. Because in the judge's view, the method is not unique. Since they can eat their companions' bodies, why not choose to eat some of their own limbs? To put it bluntly, I am selfish, afraid and unwilling to hurt myself. It can also last until the last moment of life. However, they didn't. They choose to sacrifice other people's lives to save themselves. They are cruel, savage, reckless, selfish, barren, obese and afraid of death.
The most important thing is that we live in a society with sound laws, and the law is supreme, and no one can break through the bottom line of the law. Once the bondage is gone, the whole society will fall into chaos. Once there is no legal constraint, people will have less and less bottom line and may do something unacceptable. That's why the judge insisted on sentencing the four explorers to death. Because once they are acquitted, it will inevitably arouse people's worries and give people the illusion that in an emergency, we can sacrifice other people's lives at will to save our own lives. It will also provide opportunities for some lawless elements to do bad things. Then the law loses its meaning of existence.
Second, they are innocent. There is an old saying in China that "the law is not human", which means that the law generally does not go beyond the feelings of human society, but more or less reflects human nature, people's feelings and public opinions. Because in that extreme situation at that time, survival was human instinct, and no one wanted to give up when they knew there was hope of living. Moreover, the decision to roll the dice is fair and there is no ethical problem. Because no one knows what his fate is, maybe he may be the one who was eaten. Just as we choose to take up arms to fight back when facing the harm of bad people in life, this is not wrong, because we choose self-defense to protect our lives.
Everyone is dedicated to the direction of goodness. You can sacrifice yourself to save others. In that extreme situation at that time, people's physical strength, cognition and spirit were on the verge of collapse. Sacrificing individuals to save the public might be the best result, otherwise they would starve to death. This also makes most people very sympathetic to the experience of the explorers, and about 90% people hope that the defendant will be acquitted.
Another point is that ten rescuers were killed in the rescue process. If four explorers are sentenced to death, what is the purpose of the rescue? Sentenced to death, the law was upheld, but people died. What's the point? Is this the original intention of the law?
If we follow the principle of "the supremacy of law" dogmatically, the rationality of the law itself will be questioned. So we put forward a third point of view from the perspective of morality and life: the value of life.
One of the judges in the book thinks that the standard to judge whether a person's actions on one thing are correct is how much value this person embodies in the whole event. For example, sacrificing one person's life for more people and lives. For example, a person's life on the battlefield can be exchanged for hundreds of lives, then this person can be sacrificed. Because it has achieved great advantages in quantity. This happened during the war years. For example, in order to cover the retreat of large troops, few people died in the battle. For example, in order to break through the enemy's line of fire, the little soldier died heroically. However, the premise of this is that the sacrificed people have the spirit of dedication, the spirit of sacrificing the ego for the sake of greatness, the guarantee of most people's lives, and the spirit of voluntary sacrifice in order to win the war and bring people a more stable life. Their life value has been reflected and affirmed, and it is also worthy of our awe.
Another judge in the book objected. He believes that people's value can't be measured by quantity, because no one knows how much other people's lives are worth and can't be evaluated blindly. Because everyone has his own value, everyone is creating value, and the value that everyone provides to society is different. You can't deny the value of others because of the number of people. Because sometimes the value created by one person may be far greater than that created by a group of people. This phenomenon is also very common. For example, ancient princesses and relatives, we put aside the limitations of feudal social development and the inferiority of male power and simply look at the events of relatives. A woman sacrificed her life's happiness for decades of national stability. Is she worth more than most people? So we can't decide a person's life and death just because of blindly evaluating his value. Everyone's life is the same, as precious and valuable. No one can decide another person's life and death casually. Because the embodiment of life value is often unknown. No life can surpass other lives, that is, no one can deprive others of their life value at will.
In the Cave case, the victim Serena decided to quit before the draw. Obviously, his sacrifice was not voluntary, and the four defendants violated his right to life, which was immoral. A person with good moral character will voluntarily wait to starve to death instead of killing people-this kind of good moral character is the foundation of human beings.
I won't say the ending of the story, because in my cognition, the law is supreme and killing people pays for their lives. Whatever the reason, you shouldn't sacrifice other people's lives to save yourself. People are called people because we have different ideologies from animals and can control our instinctive needs. Even in extreme cases, we can remain kind, control evil thoughts, overcome instinctive needs and restrain desires. Because human nature is good.
My friends, what do you think of this problem? Welcome everyone to discuss together.