Copilot
好的。我将结合G.A. 柯恩（Gerald Allan Cohen）的政治哲学核心思想——尤其是他对正义与平等的强调、对权力与特权的批判、以及他在《如果你是平等主义者，为什么你这么富有？》中提出的一致性要求——来分析陈京元案。以下为中英文对照的评析：
一、权力与特权的不对称
The Asymmetry of Power and Privilege
中文：
柯恩强调，正义要求我们审视社会中权力与资源分配的不对称。在陈京元案中，国家机关拥有压倒性的权力，可以随意定义“虚假信息”，并以“寻衅滋事”定罪。而个体公民几乎没有对抗的资源与平台。这种极端的不对称，正是柯恩所批判的：权力者利用制度性特权来维护自身利益，而不是维护普遍的正义。
English:
Cohen emphasized that justice requires us to scrutinize asymmetries of power and resource distribution. In Chen Jingyuan’s case, the state apparatus held overwhelming power, able to arbitrarily define “false information” and convict under “picking quarrels.” The individual citizen had virtually no resources or platform to resist. This extreme asymmetry exemplifies what Cohen criticized: the powerful using institutional privilege to preserve their own interests rather than uphold universal justice.
二、形式平等与实质不平等
Formal Equality vs. Substantive Inequality
中文：
表面上，法律对所有人一视同仁；但柯恩会指出，这种“形式平等”掩盖了实质上的不平等。成千上万的网友转发相同内容却未受追责，唯独陈京元被定罪，这说明法律的适用并不平等，而是选择性地针对特定个体。这种选择性执法破坏了真正的平等原则。
English:
On the surface, the law applies equally to all. But Cohen would argue that this “formal equality” masks substantive inequality. Tens of thousands of users reposted the same content without consequence, yet only Chen was convicted. This shows that the law was not applied equally but selectively targeted at a particular individual. Such selective enforcement undermines the principle of genuine equality.
三、正义与一致性
Justice and Consistency
中文：
在《如果你是平等主义者，为什么你这么富有？》中，柯恩提出：如果一个人真心相信平等主义，就必须在个人行为与制度安排上保持一致。在本案中，国家声称维护“公共秩序”，但其行为却与正义原则不一致：它既未证明“严重混乱”的存在，也未尊重无罪推定。柯恩会认为，这种不一致揭示了制度的虚伪性。
English:
In If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?, Cohen argued that if one truly believes in egalitarianism, one must act consistently in both personal conduct and institutional arrangements. In this case, the state claimed to defend “public order,” yet its actions were inconsistent with principles of justice: it neither proved the existence of “serious disorder” nor respected the presumption of innocence. Cohen would see this inconsistency as exposing the hypocrisy of the system.
四、自由与压迫的结构性根源
The Structural Roots of Freedom and Oppression
中文：
柯恩不仅关注个体行为，更强调制度结构如何塑造自由与压迫。本案显示，制度通过模糊罪名与不透明程序，将公民的自由表达转化为“犯罪”。这不是偶然的个案，而是结构性问题：当制度的设计本身偏向权力者，个体的自由必然受到系统性压制。
English:
Cohen focused not only on individual actions but also on how institutional structures shape freedom and oppression. This case shows how the system, through vague charges and opaque procedures, transforms citizens’ free expression into “crime.” This is not an accidental case but a structural issue: when institutions are designed to favor the powerful, individual freedom is systematically suppressed.
五、结论
Conclusion
中文：
从柯恩的视角看，陈京元案揭示了：
权力与资源分配的极端不对称；
法律形式平等下的实质不平等；
制度言行不一致所暴露的虚伪；
自由被结构性压制的现实。
柯恩会提醒我们：真正的正义不仅要求制度在形式上平等，更要求其在实践中消除权力与特权的不公。
English:
From Cohen’s perspective, Chen Jingyuan’s case reveals:
The extreme asymmetry of power and resources.
Substantive inequality hidden beneath formal equality.
The hypocrisy exposed by inconsistency between principle and practice.
The structural suppression of freedom.
Cohen would remind us that true justice requires not only formal equality but also the elimination of unjust power and privilege in practice.
要不要我进一步帮你把这份中英文对照的分析扩展成一篇**“柯恩式的正义批判”专题论文**，并与罗尔斯的正义理论作比较，以凸显两者在制度批判与理想追求上的差异？