The show "The Three-Body Problem" was recently released on Netflix, and I finished watching the first season on the flight back to Singapore.
I have read and listened to the book "The Three-Body Problem" at least ten times since college. I am very familiar with every small theory in it. So when I watched the series, I felt like I was constantly being spoiled. However, overall, it was still a great experience. The character of Da Shi provided all the humor.
However, the dark forest theory proposed in the book is not entirely the philosophical system that I agree with. This made me think of Hobbes' and Locke's different interpretations of the state of nature.
Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, people are equal in mind and body, but this equality leads to constant struggles among people, even resulting in a state of war. He thought that war is the origin of politics, and through the social contract, people give up certain rights in exchange for the protection of life.
On the other hand, Locke had a critical inheritance of this "state of nature." He believed that this state ensures human equality and does not necessarily lead to endless wars. Locke emphasized that the true state of nature is where people interact according to the rational laws, without an authoritative ruler to make judgments. He particularly stressed private property as a fundamental right granted by natural law.
I personally may not have suffered enough social setbacks, and I identify more with Locke's argument.
In decision-making, the Principle of Benevolence emphasizes considering the impact on others when making decisions, striving to make choices that are kind and beneficial to others; unless there is clear evidence indicating malice on the part of the other party, one should assume their motives are neutral or even positive. This principle stems from a fundamental perspective in ethics, which holds that our actions should not only focus on personal interests but also consider the positive impact on organizations and others.
The Principle of Benevolence requires decision-makers to adopt an attitude of kindness and fairness when faced with choices, minimizing negative impacts on others as much as possible. This means that in business decisions, policy formulation, or everyday life choices, priority should be given to options that promote common interests, enhance social well-being, and improve interpersonal relationships.
However, the Principle of Benevolence does not equate to unconditional tolerance or repaying grievances with virtue. It is important to protect oneself and one's own interests when facing injustice or malice, and sometimes defensive measures are even necessary. Excessive tolerance can lead to unfairness, especially for those who follow rules and behave well. Therefore, while initially treating others with goodwill, it is reasonable to take necessary responsive measures once malicious behavior is detected, ensuring both the protection of individual and collective interests and the maintenance of fairness and justice.