Sophie's Choice

[Deleted member 143209]

Morality poses many questions, this is one involving an agonizing decision, of having to choose between your own children. This is an example, but I urge this topic to keep going into a full moral debate, and you can also throw in more dilemmas if you wish. Debate, discuss, or simply post your view, but also feel free to add more morality questions only once you stay on topic and address the previous question(s) if you need to, in order to stay on the topic at hand. We'll begin with Sophie's Choice.

In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 -- the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty? What would you have done in that situation?​

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Ah that's so sad...
I would probably have asked to sacrifice myself instead if I was her rather than pick of one of my two kids to die...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

If I was Sophie, I would have offered to give up my life to save them both.

 

[Sydian]

Assuming that giving her own life for the sake of both her children was not an option, I feel she made the same choice I would have made. The younger one still has so much more to do yes, but even still, it's not fair to the older child. It's not fair to any of them, though. Not to mention the older child was the male, so the name couldn't be passed down further. It's an awful decision to have to make, really. Just shows how much of a dark mark the Holocaust was, not only on Germany, but on the world as a whole.

 

[Hanyou]

I'm not a parent, so I don't know how a parent would feel. However, I would rather have both children led to the gas chamber together than participating in their game by choosing which one should survive. Of course, I would offer my own life first, but I'm assuming that's not a choice.

 

[Legobricks]

It's a little amusing to see everyone say they'd sacrifice themselves in dilemmas like this, but really, would you? It's just such a noble thing to say! Honestly, I know I'd retain the female child for no good reason, but I wouldn't want to say that, I sat here for a while trying to come up with some contrived justification, but no... What does one honestly think? Often the first thing that enters one's mind, I believe; if that honestly was along the lines of 'sacrifice self', good for you, but the sheer number of people who go about giving that answer is mighty suspect.

Just something to think about.

 

[Oryx]

It's a little amusing to see everyone say they'd sacrifice themselves in dilemmas like this, but really, would you? It's just such a noble thing to say! Honestly, I know in my heart that I'd retain the female child for no good reason, but I wouldn't want to say that, I sat here for a while trying to come up with some contrived justification, but no... What does one honestly think? Often the first thing that enters one's mind, I believe; if that honestly was along the lines of 'kill self', good for you, but the sheer number of people who go about giving that answer is mighty suspect.

Something to think about.

I have to agree with this. It's really easy to say "I'd sacrifice myself, of course", without being in that situation. You also have to keep in mind that if the parent died and the children were left to survive, they wouldn't have a family, someone to take care of them, if they actually did make it out alive.

I have no idea what I'd do. I don't want to put myself in a situation in my head that would leave me upset for no good reason by thinking too hard about it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It's a little amusing to see everyone say they'd sacrifice themselves in dilemmas like this, but really, would you? It's just such a noble thing to say! Honestly, I know in my heart that I'd retain the female child for no good reason, but I wouldn't want to say that, I sat here for a while trying to come up with some contrived justification, but no... What does one honestly think? Often the first thing that enters one's mind, I believe; if that honestly was along the lines of 'sacrifice self', good for you, but the sheer number of people who go about giving that answer is mighty suspect.

Something to think about.

I honestly can't tell you if I would really go through with it because I'm not a parent. I do know that parents develop a deep bond with their children and it's also instinct for many mammals to be protective of their young even if it endangers them.

 

[Esper]

A choice between two things, both of which are horrible. How do you choose? I feel like there is no moral answer because you're being forced into the decision which is like having the decision being taken away from you.

If Sophie's choice was something along the lines of trying to hide a Jewish child and risk being caught then I think there's more you can say about her choice in terms of morality. I hope I'm making sense. I just feel like the situation is too artificial to come to any conclusions about what is the moral thing to do. There is no moral answer. There's just a choice and maybe some examination of Sophie's thoughts that might explain what led her to the choice. I don't think that's the same thing as morality in this situation.

I feel like morality is something you should talk about when you have the agency to direct your own life and not when you're a helpless rat in someone else's maze.

 

[Kirozane]

This situation is difficult for me. A huge lose-lose not matter how you look at it. I could, like a lot of you, Say I would put my life up in place of theirs if I had the option. (which I most likely would not.) But if I were really thrust into that spot, I doubt I could follow through. No matter how much I care about either end, I believe my fear of death would win out and negate the self sacrifice option.

Would it make me look selfish? No doubt about it. But I wouldn't be able to do it. The choice itself would be attempting to pick the lesser of two evils - three if you choose to let both perish. And I doubt I would be able to make it. It would be a situation where, No matter what decision I made, I would be brutally assaulted with "what ifs" that would tear my psyche (or what was left of it by then) to shreds.... And by that time I would probably commit suicide as well, only because I would be unable to cope with the crushing guilt I'd thrust upon myself.

I really hope I stayed on topic...

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

I honestly can't tell you if I would really go through with it because I'm not a parent. I do know that parents develop a deep bond with their children and it's also instinct for many mammals to be protective of their young even if it endangers them.

Seconded... sort of.

If I was just given two children to call my own, and then placed in this situation, I'd probably do something similar to Sophie and save the 'weaker' one, so to speak. Even if the option to give one's own life up was on the table, I'm not sure the love I presumably have for these children would overcome my fear of death. But that's my personal fears overcoming the moral conundrum.

However, pretty much no parent I know would do this, given the same situation. On the multiple occasions when I was younger that I'd put my parents in hypothetical situations like this over who they'd save over me or my brother, they've always said they'd give up their own lives before having to choose. All of my other friends' parents - or friends who are parents - would undoubtedly say the same.

And yet, none of them have actually been placed in a situation like this. It's all very well 'saying' that you'd do something, but when push comes to shove... I honestly don't know how many would make the ultimate sacrifice. At this stage in my life, I probably wouldn't, unfortunately...

 

[Captain Fabio]

It is almost impossible for me to say.
On one side, you say that you would, is the option was there, to sacrifice yourself, but would you? Faced with a gun to your face, would you say shoot me instead of them? It is something you can't really decide on till you are in that horrible situation.

Do you choose one child over the other? That has got to be one of the worst decisions of your life. You will be riddled with guilt for the rest of your days, no question about it. It is hard to discuss this since I doubt, and I hope, no one will ever be in this situation. We can only hypothetically asume if we are in this situation.

For myself, much like I have said before, I do not know. That is it really. When humans are faced with our own mortality, you just don't know how you will react. We like to think we would do the right thing, but it is an human instinct to protect yourself.

I propose this, if someone has fallen onto a train track and a train is about 20 seconds away from reaching that person. There is no way for the train to fully break in time, even if they see that person on the tracks, it might buy you some more time, but only a second or two, would you jump down and help this perfect stranger and put your own life on the line? This ties into part of Abnegation's question, but more to do with your own mortality and to do with people who are saying they would sacrifice themselves to save their children. You might consider it different, since you don't know that person, but when it comes down to the final imperative moments, can you really say, 100% that this would be your decision?

For me, it is too difficult for me to say.​

​

 

[ShinyMeowth]

You have two choices:
-Let both your children die
-Let one of your children die
Assuming you can't prevent it in any way, one of them has to die anyway. The question comes down to this: Do you want another one to die?
Well, no. It is incredibly unfair to the one who dies, but it is even more unfair to kill them both due to my indecisiveness. I would try my best to make a random and unbiased choice, but I would definitely save one of the kids. Yes, I would feel terrible for my choice of kid for the rest of my life. No, I would not ever regret saving one.

 

[Deleted member 143209]

A choice between two things, both of which are horrible. How do you choose? I feel like there is no moral answer because you're being forced into the decision which is like having the decision being taken away from you.

If Sophie's choice was something along the lines of trying to hide a Jewish child and risk being caught then I think there's more you can say about her choice in terms of morality. I hope I'm making sense. I just feel like the situation is too artificial to come to any conclusions about what is the moral thing to do. There is no moral answer. There's just a choice and maybe some examination of Sophie's thoughts that might explain what led her to the choice. I don't think that's the same thing as morality in this situation.

I feel like morality is something you should talk about when you have the agency to direct your own life and not when you're a helpless rat in someone else's maze.

You forget her second choice, which was to take her own life, also. Which was a moral or immoral decision no matter what way you look at it. More than one question comes from Sophie's Choice, it's not as black and white as it may seem.

I propose this, if someone has fallen onto a train track and a train is about 20 seconds away from reaching that person. There is no way for the train to fully break in time, even if they see that person on the tracks, it might buy you some more time, but only a second or two, would you jump down and help this perfect stranger and put your own life on the line? This ties into part of Abnegation's question, but more to do with your own mortality and to do with people who are saying they would sacrifice themselves to save their children. You might consider it different, since you don't know that person, but when it comes down to the final imperative moments, can you really say, 100% that this would be your decision?

Well I'm assuming they're tied down in this situation, or stuck for that matter. But if I wouldn't put my life at risk if there was a large chance I wouldn't survive. If the person is killed, I will feel guilty having never done something, but I wouldn't test the hand of fate and risk the chance of two people being killed over one. If I knew that person very well, and I loved them, I would certainly do all I can and risk my life. But ultimately, I want myself to come of the situation alive, so if it's a black and white situation where I run the large risk of being killed for a person I don't know that well, chances are I wouldn't. However, I'm sure I could take evasive action if I needed to get out of there in time. But I would rather spare one life, than lose two.

 

[Esper]

You forget her second choice, which was to take her own life, also. Which was a moral or immoral decision no matter what way you look at it. More than one question comes from Sophie's Choice, it's not as black and white as it may seem.

You mean her suicide? I'd say that choice was neither moral nor immoral. I feel like morality is silent on a lot of choices. Obviously simple things like which clothes to wear today, but also ones where there is no clear "better" choice like when you have Choice A: save one child, let the other die, and Choice B: save one child, let the other die. It's really just the same choice. You can't say one is more moral than the other. Of course it's still heartbreaking, but that's not really the same thing.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

Regarding Fabio's example, if the situation were engineered so that it would be highly likely that I'd die to save someone else's life, I probably wouldn't attempt it. The fact that it would be a stranger has some bearing on it but, going back to the original 'Sophie's Choice' dilemma, at this stage in my life I'm not sure whether I'd be willing to sacrifice myself for anyone at all.

The train analogy got me thinking about another 'morality-esque' hypothetical involving train tracks and death and whatnot that my roommate and I were talking about a few weeks ago:

You're standing by a set of train tracks with a fork in the path, next to a lever. An evil moustache-twirling villain has tied one person to one set of tracks on one side of the fork, but five people to the other side of it. A train is on its way and the tracks are currently set to run over the tracks with five people tied to them. The lever you're stood next to can alter the journey of the train so that it travels down the tracks with only one person on it. There's no way to stop the train from moving, and you cannot untie any of the people due to super-secret villanous knot technology. Do you pull the lever or not?

(Hopefully I explained that OK.)

 

[Dawn]

Woah. Deja vu. Pretty sure I read this recently in school.

Given so little information I could not decide which child to choose. I cannot know because I would've known so much more information if I was actually in the situation. Based on this, I might as well flip a coin, seeing as there's hardly a basis to say there's probably a lesser evil.

Nobody answered the /first/ question >.>

It's my personal opinion that people should not feel bad about things they didn't have the power to change. So I don't think she should have felt bad. If anything, she should be feeling hatred towards those that wronged her.

 

[aruchan]

Sophie's Choice is a really sad movie. :(
I'm only glad that I will probably never have to make such a horrible decision, and there is no real moral answer to this question. There are three possible answers I guess (although the movie doesn't say she had the chance to give up her own life):
1. Have one of her kids die.
2. Choose neither and have both of them die.
3. Offer herself instead.

While I probably would pick three, there are some problems with that. Two can be construed as horrible amoral, because you are killing both of them, instead of having one survive.
It's better than one though in a way, as at least you don't have to be tortured by the fact that you killed one of your kids. But... it's not a fun topic to consider. :o

 

[YouMadBro?]

Now, hear me out, I'm not a horrible female hating person (I'm one myself), but I believe that Sophie made the right choice by letting her son live. Now, I also know what happens later on in the movie, but at that moment I think she made the right decision.

Looking at the facts, the boy would be a better choice because, he was older than the girl. This gave him the advantage of being smarter and stronger then his younger sister, giving him a greater chance to survive the camp.

Though, I can't imagine what it would feel like to choose one of your children to die, and the other to live. No matter how heart breaking it would feel, I would let the older, stronger child have a fighting chance, and let natural selection deal with the younger weaker child. I really hope I'm not coming off as some kind of cruel monster, but I believe Sophie made the right choice.

 

[Lily]

On one side, you say that you would, is the option was there, to sacrifice yourself, but would you? Faced with a gun to your face, would you say shoot me instead of them? It is something you can't really decide on till you are in that horrible situation.

Yes, but at the same time, I am certain we both don't have the experience of having children. That alone can make the difference in your willingness to sacrifice yourself, especially for your children.

And I don't think there is a 'right' choice, maybe a 'better' choice. She has to let two children die or one, and so she chose. The situation was unfairly shoved in her face anyway. It's admirable, the fact she could even choose at that time.