There's a well-known thought experiment in ethics called the "trolley problem," which goes something like this: A madman ties five innocent people to a trolley track. A runaway trolley is heading toward them, and moments later it's about to run them over. But you can pull a lever to get the trolley to go on another track. The problem, though, is that the lunatic tied someone up on another trolley track. Faced with this situation, will you pull the lever? The trolley problem was first proposed by philosopher Philippa Ford in 1967 as a critique of utilitarianism in ethical philosophy. The trolley problem, however, involves not only philosophy and ethics but also criminal jurisprudence. In fact, there have been many real cases similar to the "trolley problem" in history, such as the classic 1884 "Millillet" case. In 1884, a ship named "Millillet" sank in a storm. Four crew members, including Captain Dudley, first mate Stephens, crewman Brooks, and handyman Parker, were forced to flee to lifeboats. At this time, Parker drank seawater and was dying because he did not listen to advice. The four men had not eaten for eight days after eating all the food in the lifeboat. After 19 days adrift, Captain Dudley suggested drawing lots, and whoever was drawn would be killed to save the rest. Brooks, the crew member, kept quiet. Later, Captain Dudley decided to kill the already angry Parker, first mate Stephens agreed. So Dudley killed Parker, who had no ability to resist but could only utter a faint voice of resistance: "Why me?" The three men survived on Puck's blood and flesh, Dudley and Brooks consumed most of the human flesh, and Stephens ate very little. Finally, on the twentieth day, a German ship passed by and the three men were rescued. Back in England, Captain Dudley and first mate Stephens were charged with murder. The judge found Dudley and Stephens guilty. The case has been hotly debated in legal circles, with one side taking the deontological view that the prohibition against killing is a fundamental commandment, that human life is incomparable and that a conviction should be imposed. The other side holds a utilitarian attitude, believing that the lives of many people are more important than the lives of one person, and sacrificing the lives of a few people to save the lives of many people is justified and should be sentenced to innocence. The two sides are locked in a tit-for-tat confrontation. So should Dudley and Stephens be found guilty or not? The key here is whether Dudley and Stephens constituted an emergency hedge in this case. In the law, emergency avoidance means that in a state of emergency, in order to preserve the legitimate rights and interests of oneself or others, a greater interest can be preserved by damaging a lesser interest. In August 2012, for example, four men went missing while exploring Yakutia in Russia's far East, where the weather conditions are harsh and the geography is extremely remote. Two people were found by rescuers, who also found a human remains at the campsite. Two men survive by eating the dead bodies of their companions. Such cases are indisputably an emergency, and the right to life naturally trumps the dignity of the corpse. Another example, Zhang SAN by Li Si chase, see Wang Wu riding a motorcycle, so the motorcycle took away Wang Wu escape, resulting in Wang Wu fall, this is Zhang SAN in order to save their own life, damage to the property and health of Wang Wu. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so Zhang SAN does not constitute a crime. In the case of the Millerite, did the sacrifice of one man for the sake of three lives constitute an emergency? If ethics are not considered, only from the quantification of value comparison, 3 is greater than 1, the benefit is greater than the cost, of course, constitute an emergency risk aversion. However, anyone's life is priceless, so the key to this case is not the comparison of the value of life, but the need to practice a moral code of respect for life. If the guidelines of moral norms are ignored and only utilitarian values are compared in law, then the whole moral order may collapse and the society will disintegrate. In this case, the judge ultimately found Dudley and Stephens guilty on the grounds that, in the case of murder, the emergency rule could not be applied because lives could not be compared. In his ruling, the judge made it clear that saving a life is usually a duty, but sacrificing it can also be the simplest and noblest of duties. For example, war is full of the responsibility to die calmly for others. In shipwrecks, the captain and crew have the same noble responsibility for women and children. As in the battle against the novel coronavirus, many medical workers, risking their lives to come forward, this sense of nobility is moving. But these duties impose upon man an obligation not to preserve his own life, but to sacrifice his own life for the sake of others. No one has the right to decide who lives or dies. Of course, we must admit that many times we will face temptation and temptation, but can not use temptation as an excuse to sin. As judges, we are often forced to set standards that we cannot meet and rules that we cannot live up to in order to be fair. But we should not change or weaken the legal definition of crime just because temptation exists. Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder and hanged. They were later pardoned by Queen Victoria, who commuted their death sentences to six months in prison. As you can see from this case, in emergency risk aversion, there is an inevitable trade-off, but it is worth noting that this comparison of benefits must be guided by moralism, or it cannot be answered at all. Similarly, if utilitarianism is not guided by morality, law may become a mere instrument. There was once a representative case - Yao Li incident. Yao Li is a bank staff, one day the bank was robbed by a gangster, there are 300 thousand yuan cash in the safe, there are 20 thousand yuan cash in the drawer, Yao Li and the gangster, gave the gangster 20 thousand yuan, successfully with 20 thousand yuan property to preserve the country 300 thousand yuan property. But she was later fired for not using her life to protect 20,000 yuan of state property. It is difficult to define which is greater, state property or individual life, just from the utilitarian perspective. But in the view of moralism, life is obviously supreme, and no material value can be compared with life. Think about it. If you were the victim of the Millerite, would you want to die in someone else's belly? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the universal moral golden rule. No matter what social interests are protected, the life of innocent individuals cannot be deprived. For example, if you accept the sober, contrastive utilitarian calculation of the trolley case, can the mentally ill and mentally disabled be sacrificed when food is scarce? Is it okay to harvest the organs of innocent old people in order to save promising young people? In order to save the life of their loved ones, can they take the blood of people who do not want to donate? The prerequisite for the existence of society is the respect for life, and without the respect for life, society will cease to exist. You may argue that modern society has multiple values, and the law should not bind people to a certain ethical order, otherwise it is promoting its own values in the name of "law". But aren't there values that must be upheld in a pluralistic society? Is it easier for moralism or utilitarianism to forcibly promote their own values in the name of "law"? Modern society is indeed an era of multiple values, but there are some basic values that must be upheld in any era. As the saying goes, "nature changes, the earth changes, and moral principles remain unchanged". English dramatist Chesterton said, an open society is like an open mouth, it closes with something solid in its jaws. Can we say that values such as "no random killing" and "no random rape" can also be shaken? No wonder some say that if there is no absolute right or wrong, then cannibalism is just a matter of taste. It is easy to equate values with prejudice, but there is a difference between the two. Everyone has his own prejudice, which is actually a kind of value. There is no shame in biased values. What is shameful is an unwillingness to listen to the views of others and to modify your own values through their views. Prejudiced people can't tolerate or listen to other people's points of view. They usually think of themselves as superior and can't tolerate questioning. There are two types of cases that raise questions about deontology. One is the shooting down of a terrorist hijacked plane. If terrorists hijack civilian planes and crash them into buildings, can they shoot them down to save more lives? Some argue that this is certainly a legitimate emergency hedge. If the shoot-down is illegal, it can be prevented or defended by others, and more lives will be lost. My understanding of this extreme case is that it is not an emergency, but an act of law akin to war. Generally speaking, moral norms do not oppose the justification of war in self-defence. Therefore, if the shooting down is a reasonable order of the state based on due process, then it can be regarded as a justifiable act and cannot be defended against. The other is the case of Siamese baby cutting. G and R share G's heart. G develops normally in all respects, while R does not. R lacks cardiopulmonary function and would have died at birth if it had not been connected to G. So, is it possible to separate conjoined twins? Generally speaking, R is actually parasitic on G, competing with G for nutrients needed for survival. If G could speak, he would surely think that R was violating his right to life. Therefore, the hospital's operation was in fact only justifiable defense to protect G's legal rights and interests. In fact, this is not a comparison between life and life, but similar to when the gangster is killing, in order to preserve the victim's life. At the same time, by separating the R parasitic on the healthy G from the G, the doctor did not kill R, but did not take active measures to extend the life of the R with no hope of survival, but let it die naturally. In short, in times of crisis, we may have a moral obligation, we can sacrifice ourselves to save others' lives, but this is only a moral obligation of the individual, you can not translate it into I can sacrifice others to save my own life or to save others' life, because morality in most cases is a kind of self-discipline, not independent decision.

There's a well-known thought experiment in ethics called the "trolley problem," which goes something like this: A madman ties five innocent people to a trolley track. A runaway trolley is heading toward them, and moments later it's about to run them over. But you can pull a lever to get the trolley to go on another track. The problem, though, is that the lunatic tied someone up on another trolley track. Faced with this situation, will you pull the lever? The trolley problem was first proposed by philosopher Philippa Ford in 1967 as a critique of utilitarianism in ethical philosophy. The trolley problem, however, involves not only philosophy and ethics but also criminal jurisprudence. In fact, there have been many real cases similar to the "trolley problem" in history, such as the classic 1884 "Millillet" case. In 1884, a ship named "Millillet" sank in a storm. Four crew members, including Captain Dudley, first mate Stephens, crewman Brooks, and handyman Parker, were forced to flee to lifeboats. At this time, Parker drank seawater and was dying because he did not listen to advice. The four men had not eaten for eight days after eating all the food in the lifeboat. After 19 days adrift, Captain Dudley suggested drawing lots, and whoever was drawn would be killed to save the rest. Brooks, the crew member, kept quiet. Later, Captain Dudley decided to kill the already angry Parker, first mate Stephens agreed. So Dudley killed Parker, who had no ability to resist but could only utter a faint voice of resistance: "Why me?" The three men survived on Puck's blood and flesh, Dudley and Brooks consumed most of the human flesh, and Stephens ate very little. Finally, on the twentieth day, a German ship passed by and the three men were rescued. Back in England, Captain Dudley and first mate Stephens were charged with murder. The judge found Dudley and Stephens guilty. The case has been hotly debated in legal circles, with one side taking the deontological view that the prohibition against killing is a fundamental commandment, that human life is incomparable and that a conviction should be imposed. The other side holds a utilitarian attitude, believing that the lives of many people are more important than the lives of one person, and sacrificing the lives of a few people to save the lives of many people is justified and should be sentenced to innocence. The two sides are locked in a tit-for-tat confrontation. So should Dudley and Stephens be found guilty or not? The key here is whether Dudley and Stephens constituted an emergency hedge in this case. In the law, emergency avoidance means that in a state of emergency, in order to preserve the legitimate rights and interests of oneself or others, a greater interest can be preserved by damaging a lesser interest. In August 2012, for example, four men went missing while exploring Yakutia in Russia's far East, where the weather conditions are harsh and the geography is extremely remote. Two people were found by rescuers, who also found a human remains at the campsite. Two men survive by eating the dead bodies of their companions. Such cases are indisputably an emergency, and the right to life naturally trumps the dignity of the corpse. Another example, Zhang SAN by Li Si chase, see Wang Wu riding a motorcycle, so the motorcycle took away Wang Wu escape, resulting in Wang Wu fall, this is Zhang SAN in order to save their own life, damage to the property and health of Wang Wu. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so Zhang SAN does not constitute a crime. In the case of the Millerite, did the sacrifice of one man for the sake of three lives constitute an emergency? If ethics are not considered, only from the quantification of value comparison, 3 is greater than 1, the benefit is greater than the cost, of course, constitute an emergency risk aversion. However, anyone's life is priceless, so the key to this case is not the comparison of the value of life, but the need to practice a moral code of respect for life. If the guidelines of moral norms are ignored and only utilitarian values are compared in law, then the whole moral order may collapse and the society will disintegrate. In this case, the judge ultimately found Dudley and Stephens guilty on the grounds that, in the case of murder, the emergency rule could not be applied because lives could not be compared. In his ruling, the judge made it clear that saving a life is usually a duty, but sacrificing it can also be the simplest and noblest of duties. For example, war is full of the responsibility to die calmly for others. In shipwrecks, the captain and crew have the same noble responsibility for women and children. As in the battle against the novel coronavirus, many medical workers, risking their lives to come forward, this sense of nobility is moving. But these duties impose upon man an obligation not to preserve his own life, but to sacrifice his own life for the sake of others. No one has the right to decide who lives or dies. Of course, we must admit that many times we will face temptation and temptation, but can not use temptation as an excuse to sin. As judges, we are often forced to set standards that we cannot meet and rules that we cannot live up to in order to be fair. But we should not change or weaken the legal definition of crime just because temptation exists. Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder and hanged. They were later pardoned by Queen Victoria, who commuted their death sentences to six months in prison. As you can see from this case, in emergency risk aversion, there is an inevitable trade-off, but it is worth noting that this comparison of benefits must be guided by moralism, or it cannot be answered at all. Similarly, if utilitarianism is not guided by morality, law may become a mere instrument. There was once a representative case - Yao Li incident. Yao Li is a bank staff, one day the bank was robbed by a gangster, there are 300 thousand yuan cash in the safe, there are 20 thousand yuan cash in the drawer, Yao Li and the gangster, gave the gangster 20 thousand yuan, successfully with 20 thousand yuan property to preserve the country 300 thousand yuan property. But she was later fired for not using her life to protect 20,000 yuan of state property. It is difficult to define which is greater, state property or individual life, just from the utilitarian perspective. But in the view of moralism, life is obviously supreme, and no material value can be compared with life. Think about it. If you were the victim of the Millerite, would you want to die in someone else's belly? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the universal moral golden rule. No matter what social interests are protected, the life of innocent individuals cannot be deprived. For example, if you accept the sober, contrastive utilitarian calculation of the trolley case, can the mentally ill and mentally disabled be sacrificed when food is scarce? Is it okay to harvest the organs of innocent old people in order to save promising young people? In order to save the life of their loved ones, can they take the blood of people who do not want to donate? The prerequisite for the existence of society is the respect for life, and without the respect for life, society will cease to exist. You may argue that modern society has multiple values, and the law should not bind people to a certain ethical order, otherwise it is promoting its own values in the name of "law". But aren't there values that must be upheld in a pluralistic society? Is it easier for moralism or utilitarianism to forcibly promote their own values in the name of "law"? Modern society is indeed an era of multiple values, but there are some basic values that must be upheld in any era. As the saying goes, "nature changes, the earth changes, and moral principles remain unchanged". English dramatist Chesterton said, an open society is like an open mouth, it closes with something solid in its jaws. Can we say that values such as "no random killing" and "no random rape" can also be shaken? No wonder some say that if there is no absolute right or wrong, then cannibalism is just a matter of taste. It is easy to equate values with prejudice, but there is a difference between the two. Everyone has his own prejudice, which is actually a kind of value. There is no shame in biased values. What is shameful is an unwillingness to listen to the views of others and to modify your own values through their views. Prejudiced people can't tolerate or listen to other people's points of view. They usually think of themselves as superior and can't tolerate questioning. There are two types of cases that raise questions about deontology. One is the shooting down of a terrorist hijacked plane. If terrorists hijack civilian planes and crash them into buildings, can they shoot them down to save more lives? Some argue that this is certainly a legitimate emergency hedge. If the shoot-down is illegal, it can be prevented or defended by others, and more lives will be lost. My understanding of this extreme case is that it is not an emergency, but an act of law akin to war. Generally speaking, moral norms do not oppose the justification of war in self-defence. Therefore, if the shooting down is a reasonable order of the state based on due process, then it can be regarded as a justifiable act and cannot be defended against. The other is the case of Siamese baby cutting. G and R share G's heart. G develops normally in all respects, while R does not. R lacks cardiopulmonary function and would have died at birth if it had not been connected to G. So, is it possible to separate conjoined twins? Generally speaking, R is actually parasitic on G, competing with G for nutrients needed for survival. If G could speak, he would surely think that R was violating his right to life. Therefore, the hospital's operation was in fact only justifiable defense to protect G's legal rights and interests. In fact, this is not a comparison between life and life, but similar to when the gangster is killing, in order to preserve the victim's life. At the same time, by separating the R parasitic on the healthy G from the G, the doctor did not kill R, but did not take active measures to extend the life of the R with no hope of survival, but let it die naturally. In short, in times of crisis, we may have a moral obligation, we can sacrifice ourselves to save others' lives, but this is only a moral obligation of the individual, you can not translate it into I can sacrifice others to save my own life or to save others' life, because morality in most cases is a kind of self-discipline, not independent decision.