Chapter 72: Bian Qin’s Apocalypse

Chapter 72 – Bian Qin’s Apocalypse
In the report hall, Bian Qin and Arthur sat down next to each other on the left and right.

Bian Qin glanced at Arthur’s heavy dark circles under his eyes and shook his head with a smile, “You don’t look like you’re in good shape.”

Arthur smiled, “Perhaps. I remember discussing with you earlier about the deontological principle advocated by Kant and the problem of the consequentialist principle advocated by you.

Kant advocated deontology, which holds that the rightness or wrongness of something, whether it should be done or not, does not depend on what consequences it will bring, but on whether the act itself is moral.

The consequentialism you advocate, on the other hand, holds that what is right or wrong, what should or should not be done, is ultimately a matter of what consequences the action brings, or might bring, what effects it will have, and how it will change the world around it.”

Bianqin asked, “So has your view changed now?”

Arthur nodded at first, but then quickly shook his head, “It’s changed, but it hasn’t. I think what Kant said makes sense, but I think what you said makes just as much sense. That’s why, you think I don’t look in very good shape right now.”

Holding his cane with both hands, Bianchin stared up at the dome of the lecture hall, “Let me guess, you’re a cop now, so you’ve run into some kind of difficult case? Not sure what to do with the prisoner? Or maybe, you don’t quite understand a portion of the laws being enforced and don’t agree with their legislative principles?”

Arthur nodded his head and said, “You are indeed a marvelously wise man, and you have guessed correctly. I’d like to hang a bunch of people, but they probably can’t die under the current laws.”

Bianqin shook his head and said, “I’m not a wise man, I’m just a utilitarian, I just want to solve social problems.

Like I said to you before, utilitarianism is not a bad thing. The difference between my views and Kant’s lies mainly in two aspects.

Kant believes that man is a rational being, and therefore the moral concepts that man subscribes to are also rational.

But when it comes down to the level of concrete implementation, he then looks at it in an emotional way, believing that since man is rational, there is nothing wrong with man’s behavior as long as it conforms to the moral code.

Whereas I differ from him is that I believe that people are emotional and that human behavior, is motivated solely by pleasure and pain.

Human beings place themselves entirely under two masters – pain and pleasure. They instruct us what we should do, they determine what we will do, they set the standards of right and wrong, the links of cause and effect. Everything we think, say and do is governed by them.

I think of people as emotional, but when it comes to practical implementation, I see it in rational terms.

There is no difference in the nature of pleasure and pain, only in the total amount.

So the principle of utilitarianism is to increase as much as possible the total amount of pleasure and happiness for all mankind, to decrease the total amount of pain, and ultimately to make the total amount of happiness and pleasure far greater than the amount of pain.”

Arthur asked, “Theories always sound wonderful, but you should know that in actual implementation, whether it is Kant’s theory or yours, there will be some problems.”

“Of course.” Bianqin laughed out loud, “Didn’t your question of whether the train crushed one person or crushed over five put me in a difficult position?”

Arthur asked, “Do you have an answer now?”

Bianchin followed Arthur’s earlier actions and nodded, then shook his head, “Yes, but no.”

“How does that sound?”

Bianqin said, “Because whether you look at this matter from Kant’s point of view or from my point of view, something like triggering a track switch and crushing a person to death is not right.

Even from a utilitarian standpoint, it’s not a simple pick one or pick five math problem.

You should have read my book in which I formulate human pleasure and pain by labeling its four sources and binding forces: natural, political, moral and religious.

It is only by considering the problem from the perspective of political binding that one concludes that the five are greater than one, thus choosing to crush one person instead of five.

But when it comes to such things as killing, whether from the natural, moral or religious point of view, one and five are actually the same, and there is no difference between killing a person and killing a person.

When the public learns that someone is forced to choose between killing one person and killing five, they are not happier because that person chose to kill one person, nor are they sadder because that person didn’t pull the switch and as a result five people were crushed to death by the train.

The pain brought to the public by killing five people and killing one person is really the same.

Those who interpret it as a simple math problem are intentionally muddying the waters of such social issues in order to make their feelings seem deeper.

Instead of dwelling on issues like driving a train over people, consider why someone would be tied up and placed on the tracks.

And in making amendments from a legislative standpoint to minimize or even eliminate such situations.

Arthur, do you know what utilitarianism is? It’s utilitarianism, and working to solve problems is utilitarianism.

It’s a practical philosophy, utilitarianism strives to provide legislators with a theoretical system of guiding standards, and I’m tired of all the chatter, I just want to solve problems.”

As Arthur heard this, some understanding seemed to be dawning.

“So Utilitarianism is a demand directed at legislators?” Bianchin nodded, “Of course. Do you remember the Utilitarians’ four principles of legislation?”

As a London University graduate, Arthur certainly remembered the important statements in Bianchin’s writings.

He spoke, “First, the consequences caused by the offense are used as the basis for determining the final sentencing criteria.

Second, the criterion for judging the consequences to be good or bad is the change in the pleasure and pain of all concerned, that is, the change in the feelings of each individual caused by the criminal act as the basis for moral judgment.

Thirdly, the pleasure and pain of all those concerned are considered equally, and this criterion does not vary according to proximity, nor does it change according to objective conditions such as power, status or wealth, and everyone concerned should be considered according to the same criterion.

Fourthly, written legislation should seek to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people, which comes from the four aspects of nature, politics, morality and religion.”

Bianqin smiled and patted Arthur’s shoulder, “Young man, ordinary people can’t tell the difference between legislation and ethics. But you are a law enforcer, you have to distinguish clearly.

Although both legislation and ethics both aim for happiness, not everything that violates ethics should be punished.

All punishment is evil in itself, and if it should be allowed to be used, it can only be because it has the potential to preclude a greater evil.

In punishing, four purposes should be served as far as possible.

The first principle is innocence, i.e., the purpose of legislation is to prevent, as far as possible, the commission of any offense.

If such offenses cannot be eliminated, then the second principle is applied by applying a difference in the means of punishment to compel the perpetrator of such offenses to choose less harmful offenses over more harmful ones at the time of the commission of the offense.

For example, if the crime of robbery is caused by property, although we cannot prohibit the crime of robbery, we sentence the crime of robbery to exile and the crime of murder to death by hanging, so that the difference in the means of punishment is used to achieve the result of making the perpetrator not to commit murder because of robbery.

Thirdly, to stop the crime, we should minimize the social damage caused by the crime and the means of punishment.

The fourth is to spare the punishment, to act with minimum expenditure.”

At this point, Bianchin looked over and saw that Arthur seemed to be in struggling contemplation, and he smiled and said, “Arthur, you have to understand the law, especially its flaws.

There will never be a perfect law in this world, but we can pursue a perfect legal system.

That may be the point of people like you, existing in this world.”

Arthur looked up at him, “Mr. Bianchin ……”

Bianchin said, “I’m old, I don’t have many years left to live. But you’re different, you’re still young and you have to be strong to live in this world.

You did very well in the magistrate’s court the other day. You probably don’t know that I even wrote a couple of reviews for you in the Westminster Review.

You may not like it, but that’s all an old man like me can do now.

Young man, you used to say that you didn’t approve of me, but I didn’t tell you that I, an old man, approve of you very much.

I always say, what is the motto of a good citizen in a government of law? That is ‘Strict obedience, free criticism’.

I couldn’t have found a more standardized practice than that speech you gave in the magistrate’s court.

So many people say to me that they understand utilitarianism, but it seems to me that they know shit about utilitarianism!
They remember that I said ‘the greatest happiness of the majority is the standard by which right and wrong are judged’, but they forget that I also said ‘it is futile to talk about the interests of society without knowing what the interests of the individual are’.

They all want to pick the stars too much, but they forget the flowers under their feet. That’s what happens to people who only read books to death; they can’t see anything, and they only know this philosophy and that doctrine every day, and all they talk about is farting for half a day.

But you’re different, Arthur, you’re more grounded than they are, you can see the flowers on the ground and you know to look up to the stars in the sky.”

Bianqin patted the side of Arthur’s face, and the old man clenched his fist to give him a pep talk, “Come on lad, work hard! I believe in you!”

Arthur hung his head slightly, “Mr. Bianchin.”

“Hmm?”

Arthur lifted his head, smoothed his water-stained hair, and put his round black hat back on.

“I may not be able to solve the problem, but I am willing to do my best. Even though it may cause me personal pain, even at the expense of myself, I will realize what you call, true utilitarianism.”

(End of chapter)