Sophies choice, an ethical dilemma

Sophie’s Choice

A while ago a movie was produced called Sophie’s Choice.
It was a long time ago so excuse me if my rendition is incorrrect. I am using it as a medium to pose a vexatious ethical dilemma. It is the ethics not the film I wish to be discussed.

It was set during the second world war and Sophie was a Jewish mother of two young children being sent with her children to a concentration camp.

She as with most Jewish captives had very little knowledge of what the German soldiers had in mind.

(The Choice)
The train she was travelling in arrived at their destination. She and her children disembarked and were confronted by a German officer.

The German Officer said to Sophie:

Only one of your children can Live. The other child will be executed.
He asked her to decide:
Which child should live and which child should die?
If you fail to choose she is told, both children will be executed.

She made a decision and had to live with the consequences for the rest of her life.
What choice would you make if you had to choose between both of your children?

Would you make a choice or would let the tormentor be responsible.

This question of choice I feel is a very important example of responsibility.

And often the issue of “Sophie’s Choice” comes to mind.

How would you approach this difficulty?


In light of such a tragic and sadistic situation how would you respond? And just to make the dilemma complete you have a guns trained on you the whole time, you have no ability to do anything but make a choice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would fail to comply and have both of them shot. Of course, in real life, I would physically defend as much as possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would you care to expand on why you would make this decision?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not good options ........... One or both. I guess I would say all of us, cause I would deck him and make him kill us all. A choice like that would be too hard to live with and what kind of a life would you and the surviving child have.

 

Please excuse me for I have thought and thought about this choice for years so I am a little forwarned of it's nature.

The reason I suggested it was a question of responsibility was :

Sophie has in no way been responsible for her and her children's situation. She is no way responsible for the soldiers actions and sadism.

She is in no way responsible for the choice she has to make.....however

If she chooses as the soldier wants her to do she is assuming a certain responsibility for the soldiers actions, thus becoming a greater victim than she would be if she did not choose.

To me and I am sure others would possibly agree. Sophie has no choice.

I would say to the soldier. You have the power to destroy my children and me. I have no desire to become a part of your abuse. Kill my children and then kill me......and may history judge you accordingly.

It is a difficult situation in fact I can think of none worse......but in the face of such dramatic life or death choices the situation renders life as an impossibility regardless of the outcome. So I would place responsibility where it is due and that is squarely on the shoulders of the soldier. I would not assume some of his guilt by choosing as it is not my responsibility to do so.

Is this a fair summation of this ethical this dilemma.?......

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm the go down swinging type of gal. Although Quantum Quack, I understand you point.

 

Kill them both.

As children, they would not survive.

Besides, they were bound to die anyway.

 

I agree with Genteel. Find a place, make a stand as a family.

Hell, under such conditions, I can almost grasp the theory of, "It's time to strap a bomb to my chest and take a walk."

But if you can make a run and have reason to hope for the best, do so.

 

That is futility. You only expedite and ensure death in this manner. Officers standing guard would love nothing more than to make a point to every onlooker getting of the train.

Suicide is for cowards.

 

Just as an aside,

This dillemma faces surgeons operating to separate conjoined twins at times. One recent occassion comes to mind.
Where by the surgen has to decide usually very quickly which of thetwins live and which dies. ( no easy job hey?)

Whilst the circumstances are vastly different as the surgeon will base his decision on the current patholoogy or probabilities it is still an awsome decision. Also of course the circumstances leading up to the decision to operate are value based on the future of teh twins with only the their benefit in mind. With Sophies choice no such benefit was intended by the soldier.

The issue of Sophies choice is a very sad inditement of how bad humanity can behave and can be extrapolated in to larger and more pervasive fields.
The importance of this moment of choice, the true responsibility rest with circumstance, or if you are religious, with God. For the soldier is a product of humanity and his circumstances.
However is it not true that regardless of the circumstances of the soldiers "plight" he too has a decision to make as to whether to follow his command or to face execution himself instead of carrying out his orders.

Say for example we extend this dilemma and include a sniper on the roof aiming his rifle at the head of the soldier to ensure he carried out his orders. The soldier knowing this is forced also into this cycle of abuse forced upon him by the insanity of that which is violently superior to him.

If you were the soldier and you faced certain death for failure to carry out your orders what would you do? and more what if the soldiers family was also threatened? ( reminds me of the soviet Block stories of teh cold war)

I guess where I am heading with all this is that once an Insanity ( evil) takes a firm grasp there is very little people can do except to face their own death and the death of others as a stand to Principle of "right" because to fail to do so means that the "evil" will continue.

This choice is impossible to make for any parent......I couldn't choose and wouldn't choose. I would leave it all to destiny, mother nature or even God to decide. I, in effect would surrender to the impossibility of the situation and basically say I give up...... do as you will. I would place the responsibity were it rightfully belongs.

From a more philossophical POV the issue raises the question that to live a live that rejects "evil" is no mean feat. Requiring constant vigilance and strong dtermination to maintain a position of what you know is right.

Once a person allows wrong "evil ' to exist in his own ego structures it is pervasive thus compormising the person life continualy.

Allowing a little "evil" to exist is a dangerous game....yes?
Sophie and her children being the victim of the evil of racial discrimination, biggotry.

So I pose that personal ethical hygene is paramount to all of us.

Iit isn't suicide...it is sadistic bastardisation with an outcome of Murder.

 

Only problematic if you have nothing worth dying for. In other words, if your own ass is all that's important to you, I can see how making a stand for something as abstract as "the right thing" might present a problem.

 

Praytell, at that point, what would be worth dying for? I'm not seeing what you're trying to show me.

 

That's very insightful, §outh§tar. I shall consider what your question actually tells me and try to find a way to answer you in terms that you might actually understand.

In the meantime, I'm struck that you must ask at all.

 

I am baffled by your response quite equally.

Laying your life down for your friend is QUITE different from laying your life down even though your friend is going to die anyway. That is called suicide and consequently, since you brought the Bible into it... raises the question of whether or not you respect the sanctity of life and quite simply, the mental health of such a person.

 

I just don't start from such a defeatist presumption.

I don't know if it has something to do with being sheep for the slaughter at the hand of the Lord or what, but human beings are not yet styled by genetics in such a fashion as to readily accept death.

Start with the idea of what you're willing to die for. You'll find there's more, in principle, than you first realize.

 

Even IF humans are not styled by genetics to accept death, *cough* kamikaze pilots *cough*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... we understand that death IS inevitable.

What on earth is the advantage of having one child gassed and the other shot to having both shot or having both gassed? They are both going to die anyway... there were people who died 5 minutes after their liberation anyway, what then, shall we say their efforts to stay alive was in vain?

Of course! Would you rather die or stay alive and work to help the German war effort? It doesn't take a priest to figure out that answer..

 

(Insert Title Here)

Sure. Cite a case in which the behavior in question is the result of stringent conditioning.

That helps make your point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What on earth is the point of dithering over such issues when so much more is afoot?

I'm sorry, but I missed the part where you established that sacrificing your child guaranteed anything.

 

From an episode of Family Guy, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now:

• Peter poses to Brian the essential question we're discussing here in the form of a riddle. Brian recoils: "That's not a riddle. That's just sick." Peter laughs and says, "Wrong, you kill the ugly one."

And why not? At least, according to §outh§tar's values.

Some of us look at the situation as something tantamount to rape or other violations of dignity: such sadism should not receive the dignity of one deciding to choose. Just as rape isn't about an orgasm in many cases, such a choice offered up is not about saving or taking life, but rather stripping human dignity.

And while I understand that some people believe human dignity isn't worth anything, I don't understand the reasons for such depravity. Perhaps §outh§tar would be so kind as to fill us in on his experiences and perspective. It would be most enlightening.

 

Wasn't killing yourself for the empire considered a glorious death? And the same goes for Hari-Kari.

Indeed. But they are not going to die, one is going to live.

People fight to death in a vain hope that they won't die.

I'd stay alive if I could. It is not in my culture, or in my genetics, to want to die.