Grok

An Evaluation of Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Case from A.J. Ayer’s Moral Philosophy Perspective

A.J. Ayer (1910–1989), a leading figure in logical positivism and emotivist ethics, revolutionized moral philosophy with his seminal work Language, Truth and Logic (1936). Ayer’s emotivism posits that moral statements are neither true nor false; they are non-cognitive expressions of emotion or attitude, akin to exclamations like “Boo!” or “Hurrah!” rather than factual propositions. Ethical terms such as “good,” “evil,” or “justice” do not refer to objective properties but serve to vent approval or disapproval, influencing others’ feelings or actions. This view stems from the verification principle: only empirically verifiable or analytically tautological statements have meaning; moral claims fail this test, rendering them “pseudo-propositions.” From Ayer’s perspective, Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s 2023 conviction for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (寻衅滋事罪)—for forwarding low-impact Twitter posts on art, emotion, theory, and history—exposes the emotive, non-rational core of judicial “justice.” The case is not a clash of moral truths but a theater of subjective exclamations: the judiciary’s “Boo to dissent!” masquerading as law, while Chen’s defense asserts a rational critique beyond emotive fiat.

The Judiciary’s Emotive Pseudo-Propositions: “Justice” as Exclamation, Not Fact

Ayer’s verification principle dismantles moral discourse as meaningless rhetoric. The Kunming judicial system—Judge Pu Huijun, Prosecutor Ge Bin, and appellate Judge Li Xiangyun—“sorted” Chen’s posts (e.g., the “umbrella girl” cartoon evoking resilience, June 4th candlelight stirring memory, political spectrum analyses, Trump’s communism critiques, Mao’s revised works) as “false information disrupting public order,” imposing an 18-month sentence. With under 100 retweets, near-zero followers, and no verifiable disruption, the charge is a classic pseudo-proposition: unverifiable empirically (no harm traced) or analytically (vague “pocket crime” lacks tautological clarity). “High education implies knowing falsehood” is emotive bluster—“Hurrah for conformity! Boo to the intellectual!”—expressing institutional aversion to deviation, not a factual claim.

Procedural shadows—non-public trials, denied defenses, suppressed prison letters, selective enforcement (state media unscathed)—amplify the farce: “justice” here is an exclamation of power, not a proposition of reason. Ayer would dismiss the verdict as emotive noise: the “disruption” assertion vents collective unease, influencing behavior through fear rather than truth. In a positivist world, where meaning demands verification, the case collapses into meaninglessness—a moral mirage, devoid of cognitive content.

Chen Jingyuan’s Rational Critique: Beyond Emotivism to Meaningful Resistance

Ayer’s emotivism leaves little room for moral progress, but Chen’s Prison Blood Letter transcends this, forging meaning through rational assertion. Invoking Gödel’s incompleteness, he admits knowledge’s bounds, yet dissects the charges with SOC theory: posts as “micro-disturbances” harmless to order, judicial fabrication the true cascade. This is not emotive outburst but cognitive challenge—a verification of the unverified, demanding the judiciary confront its pseudo-propositions. His vow of “life without end, struggle without cease” and lifelong accountability for his accusers rejects emotive resignation, constructing a narrative of principled defiance.

In Ayer’s terms, Chen’s defense elevates the discourse: while the verdict is exclamatory gibberish, his letter asserts verifiable claims—facts of no impact, procedural voids—pushing toward meaningful ethical dialogue.

The Verdict: Emotivism’s Shadow, Rationality’s Light

Ayer’s moral philosophy indicts the Chen case as emotive theater: “justice” reduced to subjective hurrahs and boos, a positivist void where law feigns facticity. The judiciary’s claims, unmoored from verification, dissolve into attitude, a moral non-starter. Yet, Chen’s rational riposte offers a counterpoint: in emotivism’s wasteland, the mind’s clear assertions reclaim meaning, turning pseudo-propositions into calls for truth. The case is not ethical impasse, but a summons to verify justice—lest law become mere exclamation, and society, its echo. In this best of positivist worlds, Chen’s voice endures: not “Boo to the state,” but “Let us reason together.”