Sophies choice, an ethical dilemma

[§outh§tar]

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

My point exactly.

 

[§outh§tar]

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?

Only remember this Quantum Quack, and I would like for everyone to hear me.
Choosing a child for the soldier to kill is called MURDERER. The mother becomes not just an accomplice to murder, but a MURDER herself.

It is still futility, and therefore do not use "less self hate" as an excuse.

 

[§outh§tar]

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.

Truly Quantum Quack, save us the sob story. Boo hoo!

The love and respect for human life? You speak as if anyone has earned their right to live, or be on this earth! When anyone actually gets what they truly deserve then you can make such a case. Until then, humans are the very worst and therefore deserve the very worst. As fountainhead mentioned, you are basing this on picking the "lesser evil".

Don't delude yourself by saying you are "in control" of anything. That is called pride and that is what veils sight in the first place. Simply accept your fate, you have absolutely no control of the outcome whatsoever.

My Advice: Submit to the officers. They have authority over the family for good reason. Your confounding pride, as if the children or you deserved a better choice/situation, is bewildering. The children have no more merit to life than the officers. Simply be at peace and submit.