You are accidently thrown into a Jewish concentration camp with your family, and an officer who has found out the error and tells you that you have two choices- to help the concentration camp officers with the most grizzly and inhumane of camp "duties", such as the showers, the ovens, etc.,and in exchange , your family and you will live in safe quarters. OR of course, you can refuse to assist and you AND your children (and spouse/whatever) will be killed. What would you do?
LOL!! You are no armchair philosopher!! :2thumbsup: I was recalling the movie Sophie's Choice, the hypothetical, I actually totally softened it- in the movie the woman has two children, and a Nazi officer comes up to her and gives her about 10 seconds to choose which of her two children to have him shoot, or he says he will shoot them both, and at the 10th second she pushes out one child, and the movie takes place many years later while she is left reeling in the guilt and trauma of the experience and what she did, and how she learns to forgive herself and understand that in the face of pure evil, we are all victims, she has suffered long enough, and can no longer be condemned and judged for her decisions. it was so beautiful.
I will do this, anything to stay alive, when you help the officers, you are surrounded by other officers and you can learn how to escape and help other people escape, you can use this to your advantage.
This is a good answer, choose to live so you can keep fighting. In a way not taking the deal is the easy way out, morally clean and simple. To choose to help you will have to do things which will be hard to deal with, but maybe you can save some lives.
If it was just my own life, I'd jump the guy's ass in a heart beat. He'd have to kill me. I couldn't betray my family like that. The killing and war crimes will continue whether or not my family has sanctuary.
I think the key word is family Living with the guilt of harm to others or ones own - it is a no win choice really for guilt will ever be with you I've heard that within the 'Camps' ones only focus was to survive - the cost however is so great - I'd just not want to have to make that choice
ok, what if he then said you had to give blow jobs to everyone in the camp, and every soldier manning germany's atlantic coastal defenses, or you and your family would be killed! (you're not getting out of this moral dilema that easy)
Cooperate but live long enough to see that justice is served by pointing out that officer to the war crimes commission. :2thumbsup: hotwater
I'm so glad that so many people shared their thoughts! And honestly I think its so wonderful that nobody got judgemental- I was so curious as to whether those who made the opposite choice would "judge" those who made opposing choice- and I think it is really refeshing to see that no one got ugly about the question! What actually brought the question to mind was I was reminded how, before America joined the battle during WWII, we actually rejected a boatload of Jewish refugees who were all sent back to concentration camps, and just how many, according to what I've heard, sick games were played on prisoners like that just to torment them further. And my god, to think that actual Jews themselves were often forced to make decisions on the spot, the concept is one of such evil proportions that one cannot honor it through common words. I personally don't feel there is a right or wrong answer, as anyone who is thrown on the spot to decide amongst innocent lives is put in a decision which is impossible, and will feel inevitable guilt and horror- i.e.- nothing was done in that name of cruelty- I don't feel people can be judged in situations where trauma and/or innocent lives on both sides of the fence are concerned, because a good person is inevitably damned both ways, but my god, it really is so humbling, and puts the value of life in such a vulnerable perspective, in a time of science and technology when it's easy to feel nearly immortal.