Chapter 278 Social Contract?
"Then, I was fired."
The voice of the cracked skull was quite steady. If you don't consider his subject, you might even think that these things had nothing to do with him:
"I was very unwilling, so I exposed this matter and spread it."
"Then, I died."
When describing his own death, there was no emotional ups and downs.
And for his description, Black Arm was obviously a little depressed.
And Black Arm's contempt became more and more obvious.
Even without any cover-up, he clearly revealed his attitude-
"Dying because of this, but still defending it?"
"It turns out that what you want to defend killed you, and your justice killed you."
Well, very good, you acted for justice and were killed by your enemies, so you died because of your justice, and then it became "your justice killed you."
This change of words is too low-level.
In his time, the more popular description was "Justice delayed is not justice."
Although the original sentence means "even if the result of justice is fair, the 'delay' of the process itself is a denial of justice."
What is wrong is the "delay", because the delay brings harm to the victims in the trial, which is itself an injustice and also a damage to the credibility of the trial institution.
In Yao Yan's memory, he often saw people supporting the abolition of the death penalty by reading this rhetoric.
Because some people may be harmed by this judicial error, or even innocent people may be killed, so the death penalty should be abolished.
This trick is called breaking the surface with a point.
From the possibility that someone was killed in a judicial error, the death penalty was abolished.
However, if you think carefully, to solve judicial errors, shouldn't we move towards strengthening management and reducing judicial errors? Why abolish the death penalty?
Some people will answer that if the death penalty is imposed, innocent people will die. If they don't die, then they may wait until the day of judicial clarification.
So, why not move in the direction of "why judicial errors"?
Isn't it more effective to take the path of "cases involving the death penalty are repeated and cross-examined by multiple courts"?
"Because it can't be done."
So why do you think "abolishing the death penalty" can be done?
Perspective change.
Everyone has a perspective.
When thinking about a problem, there must be a perspective that serves as a symbol and a position.
By exaggerating the victimization of innocent people, the perspective of those involved in public opinion is directed to the innocent people.
People will naturally have sympathy for innocent victims.
At this time, "protection" will become the core point.
Protecting innocent people will become the first priority for these people to judge the weight.
Perspective affects the weight of judgment.
The core of playing with public opinion is to influence people's judgment, and the most secretive way to influence people's judgment is to influence the weight.
Directly giving false information is certainly a method, but it also has great disadvantages and is easy to be discovered.
Some people will say at this time, isn't this a problem of limiting legal rights? How did it become public opinion?
This point is related to the legal theory just now.
Regarding the legitimacy of a country's rule, there is a school of thought called "social contract theory".
There are many classifications within this school itself, and there are also many conflicting and hostile ones.
One of the most familiar ones of Yao Yan is the core discussion of the source of legitimacy of the country:
Citizens give up part of their rights and interests in exchange for something.
Social peace and stability, personal safety, infrastructure construction, property rights, etc.
Based on the view of "social contract", the law itself has two properties, and one of them is the restriction of public power -
Restrictions on situations like the feudal emperors who could deprive and liberate prisoners and even non-criminals of their lives for personal desires.
The existence of the law itself - must be implemented in accordance with the terms of the law.
A double-edged sword, slashing at criminals and public power.
Yao Yan often hears words like this:
"People who hold power will hope that the power is as strong as possible, and the punishment for crimes is as low as possible, so as to leave a way out for their possible crimes."
Does it sound okay?
Just listening to this sentence, there is no problem.
Then, the question is, when you hear this sentence, what are the opposing parties in your analysis and judgment?
What is the key point?
Power and crime are linked.
The key point of retaining the death penalty is to weaken power.
Is there anything wrong?
So, if Yao Yan presents what he is thinking now to another person, will he instinctively think that "this person is whitewashing power"?
This is a way to influence perspectives.
People's judgment weights are affected by their perspectives.
A very important thing has been overlooked.
People's simple understanding of justice and fairness - blood for blood, tooth for tooth, those who commit crimes and violate fairness must be punished.
This double-edged sword cuts the public power and also cuts the simple understanding of justice.
Evil deeds cannot be punished by death.
The concept of retribution and moral concepts are also damaged here.
However, when the perspective is shifted, people are not aware of the problem.
Moreover, people's perspective itself will also be affected by "perspective limitations".
Even Yao Yan's expression is "not only look at this kind, but also look at the other kind".
However, when people are simplifying the mechanism, and when the perspective of receiving information is limited, they will subconsciously form priorities, resulting in "he thinks xx is not important" or even "he thinks xx is not guilty."
This is the core of the conflict between idealism and realism.
Making people completely rational is something that can never be accomplished in practice.
Why?
Because, after seeing this sentence, some people will have thoughts like "I am considered irrational" or "I am being attacked."
The body's instinct is irresistible.
Even if negative feedback can be adjusted through logical thinking formed by experience and suppressed and neutralized in the judgment stage, it cannot prevent its occurrence.
It cannot be solved from the root cause.
And as long as the root cause cannot be solved, it can be exploited.
As long as these sentences from Yao Yan are intercepted and omitted, people can have different perceptions and can be exploited.
Thinking of this, Yao Yan couldn't help but think again——
Where can I obtain [quoted out of context] this rumor-mongering general?
Speaking of which, if someone could see Yao Yan's thinking process, would they have discovered it?
The topic has been changed.
The perspective has been shifted.
Using relevant [association] and [curiosity] as a tool to change the topic is a rather blunt and crude method, but it is very effective.
Obtaining information itself is a way to guide thinking.
As long as there is the act of reading and the act of receiving information, this act itself is a shift in perspective.
Yao Yan looked up at the sky.
If there are individuals or groups who can directly observe Yao Yan's thinking or determine his thinking, then their observation itself will also affect these observers.
Does this world have a will?
There was no response, and the sky was shrouded in fog.
Yao Yan's gaze also turned to Black Arm.
He was already roughly certain——
Black Arm has been influenced by social contract theory or derivative theories or works of social contract theory.
If Black Arm is a person from the era of Yao Yan's lifetime, then Yao Yan can lock in his era based on this.
But here, he could only draw valid information related to history that he had been affected.
ps: Haha, how is it? Did you not notice that the perspective was shifted before pointing it out?
Did you remember that the topic was about the black arm experience at the beginning?