Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on George Edward Moore’s Core Ideas in Common Sense Realism

George Edward Moore (1873-1958), a foundational analytic philosopher, championed common sense realism in essays like “A Defense of Common Sense” (1925) and “Proof of an External World” (1939). His core ideas reject skepticism and idealism by affirming the intuitive certainty of everyday propositions—“Here is one hand, and here is another” as indubitable evidence of an external world—positing that ordinary language and perceptual beliefs are prima facie reliable, not to be overturned without overwhelming proof. Moore critiqued abstract philosophical systems that deny common sense, emphasizing direct realism (objects exist mind-independently) and ethical intuitionism (goodness as indefinable, non-natural property known non-inferentially). The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Moore’s lens, exemplifies a profound betrayal of common sense: the judiciary’s skeptical abstraction denies the intuitive reality of harmless inquiry, reifying “disruption” without proof, fracturing perceptual trust and ethical intuition.

1. The Indubitability of Common Sense Propositions: Judicial “Disruption” as Unproven Skeptical Denial

Moore’s defense hinges on the self-evident certainty of basic propositions: doubting “Here is a hand” requires proving all hands illusory, an absurd burden shifted to skeptics.

The verdict skeptically denies this: presuming “high education implies discernment” abstracts Chen’s forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as “disruptive,” overturning the common sense proposition “Innocent sharing is not provocation” without proof—no causal hand of disorder (zero ripple, prosecutor’s unverified admission). The closed-door trial burdens the defense: Chen’s prison letter—indubitably asserting taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—proves the external reality of non-malicious flux, yet the “shut up” directive abstracts it away. Moore would retort with his hand: “Here is one forward, and here is another unpunished”—millions of similar shares indubitably externalize the absurdity, demanding the skeptic prove universal malice. This denial inverts common sense: justice, intuitively perceptual, yields to unproven skepticism.

2. Direct Realism and the External World: “Intent” as Idealist Abstraction Over Perceptual Particulars

Moore’s realism affirms the external world’s independence: skepticism fails to disprove ordinary perception, as “I know there is an external world” trumps philosophical doubt.

The sentence abstracts “intent” idealistically: “disorder” denies the perceptual particularity of low-impact shares, as if external reality bends to internal presumption (“high education implies malice”). Evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s confession) perceptually affirm the world: forwards exist externally harmless, unabstracted by chaos. The non-oral appeal enforces abstraction: Chen’s taxonomy perceptually grounds “rumor” in particulars (non-falsifiable art), proving the external flux—yet barred, realism fractures. Moore would wield his proof: “Here is one anomaly, and here is another (unpunished millions)”—perceptual hands grasp the world’s innocence, skepticism’s doubt unproven.

3. Ethical Intuitionism and Non-Natural Properties: Coercive “Justice” as Misjudged Moral Indefinables

Moore’s intuitionism posits ethical properties like “good” as indefinable, known directly—justice intuitively demands proportionality, not excess.

The 20-month penalty misjudges indefinables: “good order” intuitively requires evidence, not fiat—evidentiary gaps intuitively “bad,” as the barred letter’s ethical taxonomy indefinably rectifies “rumor.” Selective enforcement intuitively indefinable: justice’s non-natural property demands consistency, not caprice. Moore would intuit the wrong: the case’s “order” indefinably corrupts, as coercive excess non-naturally “bad.”

Conclusion: Moore’s Lens on the Case—Skeptical Shadows Over Indubitable Hands

From George Edward Moore’s common sense realism, the Chen Jingyuan case is skeptical overreach: unproven doubt denies perceptual hands, abstract ideals eclipse particulars, intuition misjudged in moral indefinables. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet an indubitable hand in the dark. This case cautions: common sense endures—doubt it without proof, and justice slips. As Moore proved, “The proposition ‘I know that this is a pencil’ is certainly true”—may inquiry’s pencil yet write.