Grok

An Evaluation of Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Case from the Perspective of Metaethics

Metaethics, a branch of ethical philosophy, interrogates the nature, meaning, and foundations of moral statements, asking whether moral facts exist, how we know them, and what “good” or “justice” truly signify. Key debates include moral realism (moral facts are objective and mind-independent, as in G.E. Moore’s intuitionism) versus anti-realism (moral judgments express emotions, attitudes, or constructions, as in A.J. Ayer’s emotivism or J.L. Mackie’s error theory, where moral claims are systematically false). Constructivism (e.g., John Rawls or Christine Korsgaard) posits morals as rational agreements or human creations. From this metaethical lens, 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—raises profound questions about the moral status of judicial “justice.” The case is not merely a legal error but a metaethical crisis: the judiciary’s moral claims (“order disrupted”) lack objective grounding, functioning as emotive power-plays or constructed fictions, while Chen’s defense asserts a constructivist call for rational moral dialogue.

Metaethical Framing: Is Judicial “Justice” a Fact, Expression, or Fiction?

The Kunming judiciary—Judge Pu Huijun, Prosecutor Ge Bin, and appellate Judge Li Xiangyun—“sorted” Chen’s posts (e.g., the “umbrella girl” cartoon symbolizing resilience, June 4th candlelight evoking 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 impact, the charge’s moral assertion (“justice demands punishment”) invites metaethical scrutiny.

• Moral Realism Challenge: If moral facts are objective (Moore’s non-naturalism), the judiciary’s claim fails: no intuitive “disruption” fact exists; the “high education implies knowing falsehood” presumption lacks clear, distinct moral truth. Pu’s verdict, devoid of evidence (no appraisal, no causation), dissolves into subjective assertion, not realist fact. Chen’s SOC theory—positing posts as harmless “micro-disturbances”—exposes this: justice as fact demands empirical grounding, absent here.

• Emotivism and Error Theory: Ayer’s emotivism views moral language as non-cognitive exclamations (“Boo to disruption!”); the charge expresses institutional aversion to dissent, not propositional truth. Mackie’s error theory fits: moral claims presuppose objective “order” facts, but the case’s vagueness (“pocket crime”) renders them systematically false—no harm, no violation. Procedural shadows—non-public trials, denied defenses, suppressed letters—amplify the error, a moral fiction propping up power.

Chen’s Defense: Constructivist Moral Dialogue and the Limits of Judicial Claims

Chen’s Prison Blood Letter invokes Gödel’s incompleteness, admitting knowledge’s bounds, and SOC theory to refute causality, urging open discourse. This aligns with constructivist metaethics: Korsgaard’s proceduralism sees morals as rational constructions via dialogue; Rawls’s “veil of ignorance” demands fair procedures. Chen constructs justice as a shared agreement—calls for open forums, measured penalties, wisdom over sycophancy—exposing the judiciary’s claims as non-constructive impositions. His vow of “life without end, struggle without cease” embodies constructivist agency: moral truth emerges from engaged reason, not decreed fiat.

The Metaethical Verdict: A Crisis of Moral Language, a Call for Constructive Truth

Metaethics indicts the case as a failure of moral discourse: judicial claims dissolve into emotive errors or unreal facts, bereft of realist grounding or constructivist dialogue. The “disruption” assertion, unmoored from evidence, exemplifies Mackie’s error—systematic falsity in moral pretense. Yet, Chen’s defense offers hope: a constructivist path, rebuilding justice through rational exchange. The case is not ethical defeat, but a metaethical summons: in the ruins of moral language, forge truth through shared construction. Chen Jingyuan, the doubt’s architect, reminds us: where claims crumble, dialogue endures.