I'm addressing kind of an interesting moral dilemma for my final paper. Basically, I'm evaluating the moral implications of Sophie's choices in the movie "Sophie's Choice." For those of you not familiar with the movie, Sophie and her two children are in a concentration camp and a Nazi gives her two choices. She can either 1) Choose one of her children to be killed and the other one will be spared. Or 2) She can refuse to choose either of her children to be sacrificed and the Nazi will kill both of them.
Obviously this is a really morbid moral dilemma and neither decisions seems particularly great. I'm basically arguing (kind of un-popularly) that the best thing for Sophie to do is to refuse to sacrifice either of her children, which effectively leads to both of their deaths. My basic argument is that Sophie is faced with two conflicting obligations. The first is the obligation to save as many children as possible and the second is to refuse to betray or abandon either of her children. Essentially, I think that the second obligation is more important (because of the idea of trust. If Sophie chooses to sacrifice one of her children, she is betraying the trust that she shares with her children) and ultimately trumps the first obligation and she should therefore choose the second of the Nazi's options.
Most people hear this and get really upset and don't understand how I could condone the loss of two innocent lives when one could have been prevented. This is the most simple explanation of my thought process. If Sophie chooses one of her children to be killed, she has directly caused that child's death because it was her decision. If she refuses to choose either of her children to be sacrificed, she is sticking with her children and the only person who can be blamed for the death of the children is the Nazi who chose to kill the children. I'm also using Immanuel Kant's theories regarding the universalizability of the maxim as well as the notion that you cannot treat humans as mere means to further support my argument (I think that Kant would arrive at the same conclusion).
Obviously this is a really simplified version of my argument and I'm leaving out a ton of details and reasoning. But does anyone have any thoughts about my argument? Even if you don't agree with me, I think that it's thought provoking at the very least.
Here are my thoughts on the matter. According to you, if Sophie chooses to sacrifice one child to save the other, she is directly responsible for that child's death. As a result, that situation is worse for her, because she has to live with the guilt of playing a direct role in the execution of one of her children. However, I am not sure that your argument convinces me that it is the worse option overall.
ReplyDeleteInstead of her directly causing her child's death, could it not be analogous to the trolley case? If she does not do anything, the Nazis (the trolley) will kill both of the children. However, if she chooses to sacrifice one (flip the switch), she redirects the Nazi's murder away from both to just one of them.
Furthermore, consider the siblings. If they knew about the dilemma, would they not want their mother to save one of them? After all, if they are siblings, they presumably care about each other, and would not want both to die.
According to Ross's Prima facie theory, prima facie, playing a role in this killing is wrong; it goes against the duty of non-maleficence. However, all things considered, it might be overridden by the duty of beneficence, to save one of them instead of letting them both die
I like your topic. When reading your argument, I thought of two analogous cases, which might be helpful to look at it in a different way.
ReplyDeleteSuppose the Nazis lock the two children in two separate basements for three months and don’t give them any food or water, which will starve them during the time. Now the Nazis tell Sophie that she is allowed to give food and water to only one of the children and those supplies can let that lucky kid get through three months. In this case, I think it is morally permissible to choose one child to feed. At least, Sophie has done everything she can to save the children. It is literally not betrayal.
We can also magnify the consequences of Sophie’s two choices. Let’s say now Sophie is the general of the anti-fascist army and she only has two troops. Unfortunately the supplies are very limited and she has to dispose the supplies by either giving them to one of her troops to get through or simply burning the supplies away. Does anyone think it is plausibly right to burn the supplies?
I have not seen the movie but what about picking one of her children through a means where she shows no favoritism. Like picking out of a hat or drawing straws. This way she is saving the life of one of her loved one. But also not conflicting with why you say she should not pick.
ReplyDelete