Answers to the book friends' doubts about the right to do good (just read it, I wrote it)
When I was replying to readers' comments a few days ago, I was deeply impressed by a comment from book friend plxswkl, and I also found that I had some problems with my explanation of the last paragraph of "Chapter 491, Heroes and Justice".
Using Lu Zhishen's rescue of Jin Cuilian as an example, I was going to explain my thoughts in the comments. However, I struggled for more than half an hour and repeatedly wrote hundreds of words, but I couldn't send it out.
Because of the banned words, I don’t know why even ‘law’ can’t appear directly in the reply.
The writer's assistant actually has quite a lot of restrictions on what the author can say. I often encounter unknown sensitive words, causing the entire reply to be swallowed up.
At that time, I promised to ‘reply in a single chapter tomorrow’, so there is today’s single chapter.
Well, it seems like several days have passed. It's not that I was procrastinating, but that when I was writing Chapter 491, I didn't think much about it. When the plot got to this point, I let out a sigh.
But when I planned to seriously reply to this question, I discovered that the law is really not something that a chemistry major like me can comment on at will. I revised and revised it intermittently for several days, but I could only explain clearly what I thought at the time.
Others, I am not able to explain in depth.
Okay, enough nonsense, let’s get straight to the point.
***********
Not only the reader plxswkl, but several readers have the same opinion. Lu Zhishen’s example is not very good. The “right to do good” mentioned by Harley before is actually quite reasonable. Later, I have a problem with the statement about the harm of the right to do good to the law and society.
.
Because the right to life is higher than the law, if the law cannot guarantee people's basic life, it is a bad law. A good law must include legitimate defense, emergency avoidance, etc.
That's roughly what it means.
**********
Harley said: Life and freedom are the most basic rights of human beings and the most worthy of respect.
People who are in trouble have the right beyond law and belief to choose the way to be saved.
Their rights to survival and freedom also endow heroes with the supreme ‘right to do good’ above laws and systems.
Any behavior that opposes the right to do good is evil and reactionary.
Any law that opposes the right to do good, including the Keene Act that restricted heroes from doing good through real-name registration, is also against morality and the law itself.
**********
This is basically my expectation for the law, which is what reader plxswkl said. The law should serve people. What he said makes sense, and I agree with it very much.
The problem is that after admitting this point, there seems to be a contradiction in the following text, that is, Lu Zhishen's heroic behavior undermined the law. If there are too many "heroic behaviors", it will have an adverse impact on society. To illustrate, d
When a hero performs his right to do good, it will lead to the collapse of the existing legal and social systems in the United States. However, Harley incorporates the hero into the legal system, but she is like a paper painter, patching loopholes in a dilapidated old house, protecting the law and the existing system.
In the end, she felt ridiculous and sighed about who is the justice and who is the hero.
What I said about the right to do good through Harley's words is not a preparation for subsequent refutation, it is just my idea.
Harley’s emotions later are also my true thoughts.
This seems a bit contradictory?
Let me explain what I was thinking when I wrote this chapter.
If there are a hundred kinds of laws, there are at least a hundred kinds of crimes.
Justifiable self-defense and bravery are only heroic actions against a type of criminal activity. For example, a strong criminal threatens a young girl. I am not as tall as the robber. I may use tools to stop his criminal behavior, such as a knife. I was injured.
He definitely acted bravely and was not guilty.
Here’s the problem, one hundred kinds of laws represent at least one hundred kinds of crimes. Not every crime requires you to act bravely.
For example, Bateman checked contraband at the dock, Du Ping, for example, Bateman beat a corrupt official who took refuge in Harley into the ICU, and handed over his criminal evidence to the prosecutor's office, for example, Superman had nothing to do after eating too much
, went to the border between North Korea and South Korea to help stowaways administer "free choice" justice, such as
There is no doubt that Bateman, Superman, and even other heroes have the most sincere hearts and just want to defend justice and the law.
They do have no selfish motives. If they don't stop these crimes, the law will gradually become corrupted.
Some readers may object that they are exercising their right to do good. This is different from people in crisis and in urgent need of rescue. But I want to say that there is indeed a difference between the two, but in the D universe, the difference is not big. For example, before the rise of Harley and Bruce
Gotham, such a ghost society, even if the people have not been stabbed with a knife in the heart, don't they need first aid? It is simply impossible to rely solely on the automatic operation of Gotham's laws to eliminate social cancers.
Heroic acts of heroism, in protecting the law.
The question is, does their behavior harm the law?
I think so.
Even if you are a government official, you may not be qualified to investigate corruption criminals.
For example, can the director of a health center investigate corruption in the Ministry of Railways?
Obviously not.
Even officials can't control officials. Bateman is a civilian, but he works in the police, disciplinary inspection commission, procuratorate and other law enforcement agencies.
Therefore, I think his behavior is harmful to the existing judiciary.
But as I said before, without his intervention, Gotham's laws will only become more corrupt. He is actually defending the law.
Summary: A hero's behavior can harm the law, but it can also be beneficial. If the good and the bad offset each other, and the effect is positive in the end, it means that the hero's "right to do good" is beneficial to society. Since it is beneficial, then change the law.
One hundred crimes may correspond to one hundred laws. If you change one law today, you will change it again tomorrow. One day, all the laws will have to be changed. Will not the system and the old society based on the law also collapse?
Not to mention complete reform, only a part of the fundamental law is changed, and the old social system cannot withstand it. The laws at the beginning of the founding of the country determine the final direction of the country. When it needs to be reformed, if you reform it, it will only accelerate its demise. Anyway, I don’t see it.
In the history of ancient and modern times, at home and abroad, no country has succeeded in reforming. In the end, it was all about complete innovation. I only talk about D heroes, not about law. I am just a science student and do not understand those things in liberal arts.
Returning to the impact of the hero's right to do good on the law and society, if the good and the bad offset each other, it will eventually have a negative effect, which means that the hero's right to do good is not beneficial to society. If it is not beneficial, it should be canceled and the hero disappears.
The advent of the heroic era shows that the world needs heroes. So the question is, does this mean that the existing laws and systems in the United States are not adapted to the new era and are about to collapse?
As a result, Harley had a series of emotions afterwards.
This is what I want to express in the last paragraph of "Chapter 491, Heroes and Justice".
Alas, maybe the space is limited, and I wrote wherever I thought at the time. The writing was casual, and the content was not concise enough, which caused everyone's misunderstanding.
Of course, it's possible that you didn't misunderstand, but just disagreed with what I said.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree. I don’t want to, and I don’t have the ability to strengthen the content in this aspect. I just happened to write the plot of the conflict between the hero and the law, so I wrote it based on my feelings.
It has no impact on the overall plot.
****************
What I want to say has been said above. Finally, I will answer readers’ questions about using Lu Zhishen as an example.
Lu Zhishen was a very meticulous person. When he was attacking Guanxi, he didn't want to kill anyone. He went to provoke Zhen Guanxi and asked him to mince meat in order to delay Jin Cuilian and her daughter so that they had enough time to leave the city. He was in the butcher shop.
Dragging the town to Guanxi.
Obviously, when he made this arrangement, he definitely didn't want to kill the person. As a result, he was too strong and Zheng Tu was too weak. He beat the person to death with three punches, which was against the law.
Lu Zhishen's crime was not simply for "the right to vent his anger". His actions were all within a set of perfect logic and all aimed at achieving one goal: to allow Jin Cuilian and her daughter to completely escape from Zheng Tu's clutches.
There is another detail. Jin Cuilian and her daughter left this morning, and last night, Lu Zhishen gave Jin Cuilian the money he and Shi Jin had.
Well, it seems that Lu Zhishen threw back the money from Tiger General Li Zhong
The next morning, when Jin Cuilian left, he went to Zheng Tu's shop to cause trouble.
Obviously, when he was making trouble, he had no intention of seeing Jin Cuilian afterwards. The arrangements that should have been made had already been made.
For doing good deeds to this level of precision, Lu Zhishen is definitely a brave and resourceful SSS-level superhero, and there are very few D-superheroes who are better than him.
But even Lu Zhishen broke the law and harmed the law. What about other heroes?
Bateman often sends people to the ICU instead of the funeral home. It’s not that his skills are better. He’s probably better than Lu Zhishen, but it’s definitely impossible to make mistakes every time. He doesn’t make mistakes just because the comic book author doesn’t let him make mistakes.
In a way, heroes represent the "rule of man", because right and wrong, the timing and intensity of action are all determined by the hero's own view of good and evil and his feelings at the time, and are not as standard as the law.
Maybe the hero's behavior happened to be within the legal framework and was not illegal, but instead improved the shortcomings of the law. It is more likely that it was like Lu Zhishen, who had good intentions but broke the law unintentionally.
This is why I used Lu Zhishen as an example when talking about the adverse impact of heroes’ right to do good on the law.
Now I go back and read the original chapter content. It is indeed easy for readers to misunderstand. It is my problem. I did not explain it clearly. However, this is just a D fan novel. It really discusses the right to do good, laws, social systems, etc. in detail. It is purely
Something is wrong. Well, I seem to have something wrong now. I spent several hours writing this chapter and didn’t even have time to reply to readers’ comments.