Sophies Choice - an ethical dilemma

[Intergenuity]

As this is the first post to this forum I thougth I'd make it a real toughy....

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.

[Pyratekng]

That is actually a simple matter. Once Sophie made her choice she was involved in the part of one of her children dying. If she says nothing, then all the guilt goes to the officer. Her only other option is to plead for them to take her life instead of her childern's...

[Intergenuity]

Pyratecng, welcome to PMF.
Yes i agree, you are quite correct I feel in saying that to answer the soldiers question is to indulge the soldier in his obscene abuse.

She can only say that it is not for her to decide, as the soldier has total responsibility for his crime. Once she makes a choice she is implicated in the soldiers power over her and her children.

A difficult choice me thinks though all the same.

In some ways this choice is the reason governments generally have policies of not negotiating with terrorists. Don't you think?

[MacM]

Pyratecng, welcome to PMF.
Yes i agree, you are quite correct I feel in saying that to answer the soldiers question is to indulge the soldier in his obscene abuse.

She can only say that it is not for her to decide, as the soldier has total responsibility for his crime. Once she makes a choice she is implicated in the soldiers power over her and her children.

A difficult choice me thinks though all the same.

In some ways this choice is the reason governments generally have policies of not negotiating with terrorists. Don't you think?

100% agreement on these responses. The only choice is to refuse to participate. I debate even pleading that they take her life vs her children, that also gives to the abuser a sense of power and control.

Interesting post but not so far fetched. In fact in the recent sunami one mother was faced with such a choice. She had two children and was unable to hold onto both. She was forced to pick one to try and save. If she failed to choose both would have died. She chose to release the older with the hopes that he could fend for himself and survive and she protected the younger child.

Unfortunately the older one did not survive but her choice had sound logical grounds in that she hoped to save both by her choice.

[naveen_n]

100% agreement on these responses. The only choice is to refuse to participate. I debate even pleading that they take her life vs her children, that also gives to the abuser a sense of power and control.

Interesting post but not so far fetched. In fact in the recent sunami one mother was faced with such a choice. She had two children and was unable to hold onto both. She was forced to pick one to try and save. If she failed to choose both would have died. She chose to release the older with the hopes that he could fend for himself and survive and she protected the younger child.

Unfortunately the older one did not survive but her choice had sound logical grounds in that she hoped to save both by her choice.

i respectfully disagree with all of you here...if sophie decides not to say anything and lets both her children die[assuming that she first pleads to that officer and he refuses to let her children go]...she is already making a choice...and that choice is to remain quiet while something might happen to her children...my answer would be that she should first plead to that general and then if he doesnt listen to her...thats when she should decide which child to keep and which one to let go...becoz by doing this she has saved at least one child...the satisfaction of having saved at least one of her children will let her live her life in a respectful manner otherwise she will only have herself to blame for the loss of her two children when that loss could have been minimized...and the power to do so was with her for some time...

Naveen

[Rogue Physicist]

Yes, isn't the real dilemma the one created by insufficient knowledge?
Both the mother, children, and the guard, hypothetically have insufficient knowledge for a rational decision.

So we too, viewing the hypothetical or even possibly historically real situation. Can we establish what would have happened, or even that there was a *real* choice available to any of the parties?

Likewise, there are facts I suppose we must all presume, like the lack of God-like powers of prescience and control: we and our enemies cannot access real knowledge of the future, or of our own influence over it.

Whether religious, or atheist, we must acknowledge our ignorance, and operate on a belief system based upon probabilities, something like the absolute brick wall of Quantum Mechanics. We can postulate and believe in 'hidden variables', but can only access probability statistics for ourselves.

The ethical dilemma is not in choosing which child to 'save' if any, but in choosing which future to trust, based upon a belief in hidden causes and intents of parties unknown.

[Jameson]

I have a similar dilemma, but on a much grander scale.

What if some terrorist says, "I will kill 51% of the world or 49%, you must make the choice right now, and if you argue, I will kill everyone"?

Other posts are correct that these kinds of situations are unrealistic, but humor me. Is there a morally right answer to this question? Is the right thing to do save the most life?

[Epsilon=One]

I have a similar dilemma, but on a much grander scale.

What if some terrorist says, "I will kill 51% of the world or 49%, you must make the choice right now, and if you argue, I will kill everyone"?

Other posts are correct that these kinds of situations are unrealistic, but humor me. Is there a morally right answer to this question? Is the right thing to do save the most life?

No there is not a morally right answer to your question.

I agree entirely with Rogue Physicist concrning lack of knowledge, etc.(with the caveat of a quick perusal).

Morality can not be reduced to "after the fact" black and white.

Morality is a decision that must come from an individual's innate acquisition of knowledge that is momentarily applied.

Whatever the choice, seemingly right or wrong, the decision is moral for the person making the decision . . . the only person that matters. Their may be intrinsic character flaws; the act/decision may be judged evil by others; but this is not a matter of personal morality.

Personal morality can not be legislated, nor determined, or judged from external situations as many on this thread are implying.

[Ouisri]

I wish non of you guys stay in that position before. Anyway I do agree with Rogue Physicist, he is absolutely right but I really difficult to answer when you have to stand in that state.