Sophies choice, an ethical dilemma

[§outh§tar]

You are making the assumption that both would die anyway. They may not. In fact, many orphaned children survived the camps without any family to look after or care for them.

Are you therefore saying they are immortal? Of course I know they might survive the camp but they were eventually going to die anyway (the inevitability is that which I spoke of) and no use having them live a rather dreadful life, don't you think?

If I was the mother, I would offer myself up for death first instead of letting my children be killed and if that was refused I would not make the choice between my two children. I doubt I would let the soldier choose as he would not care whether the child lived or died. I'd try to persuade him that the children were half German in the hope that they might be spared. If all else fails, I'd fight to the death for the life of my children. I'd make a stand and I would make sure one or more soldiers lost their eyes.

In that case they would beat you in front of the children, which I am sure is what you would want since that is the only logical thing to expect: for a woman to rise up against armed guards with her fingers.

And if I am correct about the cruelty of the Nazi's, they would alternatively beat/shoot your children in front of you to teach you a lesson. The soldier would probably not opt to kill you first since you are needed for work and if not then you are probably going straight to the slaughterhouse in which case you wouldn't even be given such a priviledged option.

That's just life. I marvel at people who try to be heros.

 

[§outh§tar]

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.

I am hurt by your unjust accusation.

I simply pointed out the inevitable and marveled at the futility of stalling it.

Simply offer whichever child the officer please and let him be on his way. No need for foolishness to endanger the other child's life in case the officer really does mean to kill only one.

Fates are set. Life in death is sweeter than death in life.

 

[CounslerCoffee]

In that case they would beat you in front of the children, which I am sure is what you would want since that is the only logical thing to expect: for a woman to rise up against armed guards with her fingers.

Oh, but her children are going to die! Why should she give a fuck if she gets beat in front of them? la... la... la...

 

[§outh§tar]

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

What on earth is the empire?

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

Then should such a scenario not be seen as a priviledge and a sign of mercy that even one should be spared the inevitable temporarily?

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

That would be fine if people remembered you for how you died. Unfortunately..

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

I do believe in America the term for this is "wussy".

But I prefer to call it selfishness.

 

[§outh§tar]

Oh, but her children are going to die! Why should she give a fuck if she gets beat in front of them? la... la... la...

I dunno, some people get aroused by that stuff....


la... la... la...

 

[CounslerCoffee]

What on earth is the empire?

The Empire of Japan. The one that fought in WWII.

Then should such a scenario not be seen as a priviledge and a sign of mercy that even one should be spared the inevitable temporarily?

No. That child can die. You've got the other one, it's like a spare. But a sane person would at least attempt to save it. Spare it from what? Life? How about you ask that child if it wants to live or die? Or any person for that matter?

Everyone here, wants to be here, anyone who doesn't, can shoot themselves (As they often do).

That would be fine if people remembered you for how you died. Unfortunately..

I wouldn't care if anyone remembered me; I'd be dead. My last thought would be "Gee, I really tore into those bastards!" Which would let me die with a smile on my face.

I do believe in America the term for this is "wussy".

But I prefer to call it selfishness.

I call it survival. No one wants to die. And if you don't care, or give a fuck, go in your bathroom and slit your wrists. If you don't, you're just wasting your time.

If you're willing to let a child die; kill yourself. If you think life's goddamn miserable; kill yourself. If this world isn't good enough for you, and horrible for a child; go see Jack.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The moment the soldier asked what he asked Life no longer had value for Sophie or her children and all the other persons faced with the same question.

A person who is prepared to demand such a choice has taken your life from you already.

 

[Tiassa]

I am hurt by your unjust accusation.

I simply pointed out the inevitable and marveled at the futility of stalling it.

There are some things more important than life itself! This is part of what makes us human to begin with.

There is a clear difference between taking one's own life and giving it.

I am not Abraham. My daughter is not Isaac. The Lord is not going to reach down and give over a ram to take her place.

Giving over to such iniquity: that decision is, by any scale I can imagine, worse than suicide.

Here's a twist on the question:

• Getting off the train, a guard tells your mother that either you or your sibling will be allowed to live.

Do you volunteer in order to save your sibling's life?

 

[§outh§tar]

Did you even need to ask me that?

John 15
12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command.

I can't answer all your comments right now because my head is exploding from a lack of sleep. If I wake tomorrow, by the grace of Him who is within me, I will to answer.

Good Nacht!

 

[§outh§tar]

The moment the soldier asked what he asked Life no longer had value for Sophie or her children and all the other persons faced with the same question.

A person who is prepared to demand such a choice has taken your life from you already.

By this conclusion, I ask, why struggle in futility against the inevitable?

 

[§outh§tar]

The Empire of Japan. The one that fought in WWII.

And what does that have to do with me?

No. That child can die. You've got the other one, it's like a spare. But a sane person would at least attempt to save it. Spare it from what? Life? How about you ask that child if it wants to live or die? Or any person for that matter?

You are therefore calling me insane even though you are referring to the child as a "spare"? And MY morality is being questioned?

And save it? save it from what? the bullets? so that the child dies by starvation? gee, that would really be more benevolent.

Of course, this really does pertain to WHEN the child got to the camp. If it was early on in the war, they had no chance. Malnutrition would wipe the "spare" off like a smudge.

Everyone here, wants to be here, anyone who doesn't, can shoot themselves (As they often do).

That's why the German officers were there and Sophie has reached this so-called dilemma.

I wouldn't care if anyone remembered me; I'd be dead. My last thought would be "Gee, I really tore into those bastards!" Which would let me die with a smile on my face.

And then what? Futility. So what you "tore into those bastards", you die and you go wherever you go and your last second effort becomes of no meaning to you. Your children are left. Guess who becomes a pinata for the anger of the officers over defacing their comrade? That's right, the kids.

I call it survival. No one wants to die. And if you don't care, or give a fuck, go in your bathroom and slit your wrists. If you don't, you're just wasting your time.

You shouldn't think like that. Like I said, suicide is for cowards.

If you're willing to let a child die; kill yourself. If you think life's goddamn miserable; kill yourself. If this world isn't good enough for you, and horrible for a child; go see Jack.

The mother wouldn't have that option. Please keep things in perspective and keep your temper to yourself Mary.

 

[Tiassa]

Seriously?

§outh§tar

I am hurt by your unjust accusation.

You're correct, it is unjust.

Or, at least, I'm willing to believe that.

Because, §outh§tar, it's true that I don't imagine you to believe that human dignity is worthless. I don't imagine you'd sacrifice "the ugly one."

But in light of that, then, I'm left wondering why you're arguing that side of the issue so strongly. It's a mystery, and judging by your exchanges with Counsler Coffee and Bells, I don't expect you to shed much light on that.

§outh§tar: 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?

Bells: You are making the assumption that both would die anyway. They may not. In fact, many orphaned children survived the camps without any family to look after or care for them.

§outh§tar: Are you therefore saying they are immortal? Of course I know they might survive the camp but they were eventually going to die anyway (the inevitability is that which I spoke of) and no use having them live a rather dreadful life, don't you think?

It seems to me you're taking a perspective that is existential at best, nihilistic. But then again there is the issue of, "What dreadful life?" It's not immediately apparent.

§outh§tar: Even IF humans are not styled by genetics to accept death, *cough* kamikaze pilots *cough* ... we understand that death IS inevitable.

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

§outh§tar: What on earth is the empire?

Counsler Coffee: The Empire of Japan. The one that fought in WWII.

§outh§tar: And what does that have to do with me?

Okay, okay, I admit that second exchange is a sort of separate point from the larger issue. But ... um ... er ... yeah. How to put it politely?

Um ... that last question of yours, "And what does that have to do with me?"

Um ... really? Seriously?

 

[§outh§tar]

§outh§tar



You're correct, it is unjust.

Or, at least, I'm willing to believe that.

Because, §outh§tar, it's true that I don't imagine you to believe that human dignity is worthless. I don't imagine you'd sacrifice "the ugly one."

But in light of that, then, I'm left wondering why you're arguing that side of the issue so strongly. It's a mystery, and judging by your exchanges with Counsler Coffee and Bells, I don't expect you to shed much light on that.

We are disposed just as much to selfishness and looking out for ourselves in life. Is that such a bad thing in this case? To try to protect ourselves just so we can be gassed, die of malnutrition, beating or the bullet?

It seems to me you're taking a perspective that is existential at best, nihilistic. But then again there is the issue of, "What dreadful life?" It's not immediately apparent.

I think it is immediately apparent if the officer is asking you to make such a decision. This is not something Sophie should be used to everyday of her life and therefore should warning bells not be set off?

Okay, okay, I admit that second exchange is a sort of separate point from the larger issue. But ... um ... er ... yeah. How to put it politely?

Um ... that last question of yours, "And what does that have to do with me?"

Um ... really? Seriously?

Well I never killed myself for the Japanese Empire. Unless it's a joke?

 

[Tiassa]

Well I never killed myself for the Japanese Empire.

I can't speak for Counsler, especially on such an occasion as my sympathies are still a bit out on the limb, but it seems to me that his raising the idea of dying for the Empire was similar to my noting that you cited, in kamikazes, a case in which the will to die is heavily conditioned in the mind. And when I go 'round the circle in the "conversational" form as I scripted it out, it just reads a little bit ... odd.

I think it is immediately apparent if the officer is asking you to make such a decision. This is not something Sophie should be used to everyday of her life and therefore should warning bells not be set off?

But ... um ... er .... Sorry to do it this way again, but:

§outh§tar: 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?

Bells: You are making the assumption that both would die anyway. They may not. In fact, many orphaned children survived the camps without any family to look after or care for them.

§outh§tar: Are you therefore saying they are immortal? Of course I know they might survive the camp but they were eventually going to die anyway (the inevitability is that which I spoke of) and no use having them live a rather dreadful life, don't you think?

Tiassa: It seems to me you're taking a perspective that is existential at best, nihilistic. But then again there is the issue of, "What dreadful life?" It's not immediately apparent.

§outh§tar: I think it is immediately apparent if the officer is asking you to make such a decision. This is not something Sophie should be used to everyday of her life and therefore should warning bells not be set off?

I'm lost between "they/them" (I thought that had to do with the children) and "Sophie" (the mother). Have I read the "they/them" incorrectly?

Because in the "they/them" paragraph quoted above:

• They might survive the camps, but
• They will die anyway (inevitable, eventual), and
• It's no use having them live a rather dreadful life

Where I seem to be confusing myself is in the seeming suggestion that, having survived the camps, their lives will be so dreadful as the result of (____?) that it's no use--and therefore extraneous and therefore cruel, though I won't hold you to that extrapolation--that ...?

What is their misery that so reduces the lives they endured Hell in order to continue?

I don't disagree that such a choice isn't something Sophie should be accustomed to. (Wow ... three negatives ... er ....) But I don't actually see the connection to the issue the point responds to.

We are disposed just as much to selfishness and looking out for ourselves in life. Is that such a bad thing in this case? To try to protect ourselves just so we can be gassed, die of malnutrition, beating or the bullet?

They're your family. In the face of seeming certain doom you simply don't abandon them. Especially in the case of vast iniquity, you don't simply abandon them. You stand together, you fight together, you win or lose together down together.

We are human beings. We are therefore irrational. Cold logic is considered "inhuman" when taken to its extremes. There's a strong case to be made for an abstract (evolved) form of eugenic control in human society. But we simply won't tolerate it because we're human beings, and we won't give that up until we find something better to be.

 

[§outh§tar]

I can't speak for Counsler, especially on such an occasion as my sympathies are still a bit out on the limb, but it seems to me that his raising the idea of dying for the Empire was similar to my noting that you cited, in kamikazes, a case in which the will to die is heavily conditioned in the mind. And when I go 'round the circle in the "conversational" form as I scripted it out, it just reads a little bit ... odd.

I'm totally lost on the point both of you are trying to make here. There is a difference between the will to die and not fearing death. People go bungee jumping but that doesn't mean they want to die.

I'm lost between "they/them" (I thought that had to do with the children) and "Sophie" (the mother). Have I read the "they/them" incorrectly?

Because in the "they/them" paragraph quoted above:

• They might survive the camps, but
• They will die anyway (inevitable, eventual), and
• It's no use having them live a rather dreadful life

Where I seem to be confusing myself is in the seeming suggestion that, having survived the camps, their lives will be so dreadful as the result of (____?) that it's no use--and therefore extraneous and therefore cruel, though I won't hold you to that extrapolation--that ...?

What is their misery that so reduces the lives they endured Hell in order to continue?

Well, what are the chances of this child surviving the camp? Lice, disease, infection, starvation, depression all around... is that not misery?

But then you are being overly optimistic by saying they will both make it out of the camp. And I already said, fine, so considering there is a chance that they would make it out of the camp, surely you agree the war would have to be coming to a close more or less? In which case the Germans first of all probably wouldn't be worrying about bringing Germans to camps, much more even worrying about which child to let live and which one to kill.

Since we are obviously in comforts that Sophie lacked and have time she did not, it is only sensible that we approach this more logically. Neither had a chance. When a dog has inoperable cancer you don't let it live the last of it's days pining away.

So you see, I'm really not being cruel.

I don't disagree that such a choice isn't something Sophie should be accustomed to. (Wow ... three negatives ... er ....) But I don't actually see the connection to the issue the point responds to.

Well, he was saying their predicament was not obvious. To which I responded that it's not everyday someone asks you to make such a choice.

They're your family. In the face of seeming certain doom you simply don't abandon them. Especially in the case of vast iniquity, you don't simply abandon them. You stand together, you fight together, you win or lose together down together.

Yes, but this isn't a "win or lose" situation. This is a lose either way you look at it so what the heck just get it over with situation.

We are human beings. We are therefore irrational. Cold logic is considered "inhuman" when taken to its extremes. There's a strong case to be made for an abstract (evolved) form of eugenic control in human society. But we simply won't tolerate it because we're human beings, and we won't give that up until we find something better to be.

Just because we are doesn't mean we have to be.

NOTE: Some of the above notions may seem alien in a world which embraces thinking with emotions.

 

[thefountainhed]

From my view, as hard a choice as this may seem, I see the only impediment for picking one as the guilt of having chosen one over the other. I do not condone the killing of both to appease one's guilt. I do not condone or value the killing of the self, plus the two to appease one's guilt.

I will pick one.

I will hate myself for eternity.

I will attempt to not have the second child see the choice.

Fighting is idiotic-- you are surrounded by many guard, your death + your kid's is surely is a given.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I will hate myself for eternity.

I find this an interesting comment.
In that the preparedness to make a decision that would condem you to hatred for ever.....I mean this seriously and not as a criticism.

For the choice to decide knowing that youare condemned to a state of self loathing fro the rest of your life is in some ways a harder solution to the dilemma than to say refuse to choose.

Would the same out come be if you refused to choose, the answer is probably. So the result of self hate is the same no matter how you choose so therefore why not choose?

The only difference maybe that that hatred would be directed at the soldier more than at myself....poor consolation indeed.

so it's a trade off...self hatred and a hope that one child will survive or less self hate and hate of the soldier but no child definitely will survive.

A gamble on the future ( hope )

Is the gamble worth it?

 

[thefountainhed]

I find this an interesting comment.
In that the preparedness to make a decision that would condem you to hatred for ever.....I mean this seriously and not as a criticism.

For the choice to decide knowing that youare condemned to a state of self loathing fro the rest of your life is in some ways a harder solution to the dilemma than to say refuse to choose.

Would the same out come be if you refused to choose, the answer is probably. So the result of self hate is the same no matter how you choose so therefore why not choose?

The only difference maybe that that hatred would be directed at the soldier more than at myself....poor consolation indeed.

so it's a trade off...self hatred and a hope that one child will survive or less self hate and hate of the soldier but no child definitely will survive.

A gamble on the future ( hope )

Is the gamble worth it?

I'm not sure it is "poor consolation"-- this guillt for not haven chosen, that some decide to embrace. Our entire being as humans is predicated on denial, and thus, I think relegating the blame to the soldier, making him seemingly choose for you, is enough for some to live with, rather than having the mother pick a child to die.

I claim that i will hate myse;f for eternity simply because the matter is hypothetical, but do I think in the grand scheme of things it will necessarily batter me contunually? No I doubt it. I do not see a lot of those who choose abortion suffering nigtmares.

Life goes on, must go on.

I think nevetheless that the guilt will be there, and over time, hopefully diminish somewhat over time. That said, will you kill one to save a million (supposing all are valued equally?)

For me, this is not a hard choice.

 

[laughing weasel]

I am going to a Jewish nursing home next month to begin my nursing training there are still some residents with strange tattoos that they got 60+ years ago they went through an awful experience and survived to have full productive lives. If they had just given up they would not have had children and careers or been able to testify against those who committed these atrocious actions. Life is to beautiful to ever give up just because that is the easiest choice. If you do not believe in a here after at least you can believe in the today. I detest those people who just give up because things get rough or life is not fair. Pick the one you think is most likely to live. Then concentrate on surviving long enough to get revenge.

 

[Quantum Quack]

it might be worth considering the rights of the children a little here.

I think this is where I am in vexation. This is difficult to put in words so please bear with me......

Sophie is given a choice to to determine the future of that which she has no right to determine. If one thinks of the children as autonomous free standing individuals.

The children are oin her care but as most parents come to know their children are "little people" with rights equal if not greater than that of the adult.

To be forced to make a decision as their guardian that is counter to their benefit goes right aagainstthe grain. For the surviving child has also to live with the outcome.

I do understand that in the cold world of statistical rational we can take the position as suggested by Fountainhead and others.

To divorce oursleves from the love or respect that we have for human life and existence.

It is true some times we over value life as well. So much that we are prepared to live in hell when we have a choice not to. Live in hell because that is existence and existence is all there is to live for.

In this situation I would refuse to choose probably because ( amongst other reasons) I don't want the life that the soldier is choosing for me.

And by not choosing I am in control of my future where as If I choose I am in the control of the future dtermined for me.

In situations like these one can only refuse to play the game, and this is the only "power" Sophie has. To refuse to choose. To choose to do and say nothing.