Question regarding absolutism/absolute truth

[jmcrae]

In other words, the taking of a life, simply shortens it.

And permanently deprives the person of experiences in this life that he would have had, including opportunities to make valuable contributions, which, since they were never made, permanently alter the whole world for the worse.

Human life is not like string - making it shorter doesn’t just make it the same thing, except not as long. Human beings grow and develop and mature over time, and if they are deprived of the opportunity to do so, it changes everything for the worse.

If you were to be murdered today, what things would you not get done? (We’ve all got unfinished projects on our desks.) Who would you not get to meet? (Your children, your grandchildren, etc.) These are the things that would be permanently gone. Not merely gone for the period of time that you would have lived, but gone for all of eternity. That child you would have given birth to or sired, never existing at all. That painting you would have painted, never comes into existence, at all.

 

[Leela]

You appear to be saying that if no moral system can be proven true there is no point in acting as if it was true. You don’t seem to realize that this criteria effectively means that there is no true moral system so one may as well do as he chooses.

And everyone always does what he or she chooses.

I never said that there is no point in behaving as though a given moral system is true. Some moral systems are better than others. I just don’t think a strong case can be made for the superiority of any particular system over all other systems. But I’m open to hearing you argue for your case for your system.

I am pointing out a contradiction inherent in your position: you accept that morality exists but you reject the possibility of knowing what it is since you require proof that is impossible to provide - but if it cannot be known it might as well not exist.
This is the heart of our difference. You (appear to) believe that you can work out the moral option in a given situation by approaching it with sincerity and good intentions completely dissociated from any set of standards with which to judge the decision.

Right. I’m saying that if we can’t know whether a moral standard is absolutely true, then the question of absolutes is irrelevant.

Its not that people don’t apply standards in any way, but they are guidelines rather than rules that may or may not apply in different situations and can be revised to fit more or fewer situations better.

An analogy of our difference would be you believing morality is like studying art while I believe it is like studying physics.

Right. Except I think studying physics is like studying art, too. It’s all art.

You believe in broad, general guidelines but in the end the decision is yours alone while I believe that moral laws are as immutable as physical ones and that there is in fact a right or wrong answer - whether or not one can reason it out.

Physical laws get changed from time to time as Einstein did with relativity.

As for whether there is always a right answer to every moral dilemma, I take the moral of original sin to be that there is not always a good option. Sometimes we have to choose the best among only bad options.

If your moral system doesn’t help you answer hypothetical questions it is of no use in helping you answer real world problems.

Again, don’t have a system, but I approach moral questions in pretty much the same way as everone else–even those who claim to have a system. Is there a hypothetical situation you’d like me to answer for you? (Obviously I agree with you that Richard Rich’s behavior was immoral.)

I hesitate to answer this because I don’t want to change the conversation which is now on what you believe, but I’ll give you a hint … I’m Catholic.

Do you think that the Catholic system of morality offers a way of solving every moral dilemma?

Best,
Leela

 

[Ender]

Some moral systems are better than others. I just don’t think a strong case can be made for the superiority of any particular system over all other systems.

If you believe that some moral systems are better then you must have some criteria with which you judge them. If you have such criteria then why do you find it unlikely that one system can be judged to meet those criteria better than all the others? My only other questions are: where did the criteria come from and why do you think they are valid (given that you can’t prove them)?

I’m saying that if we can’t know whether a moral standard is absolutely true, then the question of absolutes is irrelevant.

You can’t know absolutely that morality exists yet you don’t consider morality to be irrelevant. Your argument against an absolute moral standard is equally damaging to your belief that morality exists.

Again, don’t have a system, but I approach moral questions in pretty much the same way as everone else–even those who claim to have a system.

No, you don’t. A Catholic finds his moral options constrained by what the Church teaches in the same way an architect finds his choices constrained by physical laws. You are no more constrained than the author of a novel who may decide to give a character the ability to fly. There are no constraints on you other than the ones you arbitrarily choose.

Obviously I agree with you that Richard Rich’s behavior was immoral.

I think we would all agree that his behavior was immoral but can you articulate why? Can you know this with absolute certainty?

Do you think that the Catholic system of morality offers a way of solving every moral dilemma?

Even with all of our knowledge of the physical laws we still can’t solve every problem - but that doesn’t mean one does not exist or that some other approach would be superior. I would point out, however, that as far as Catholic ethics are concerned it is not considered immoral to be wrong if you have tried your best to find the right solution.

Ender

 

[fhansen]

Have to agree with Dameedna’s position on her reply to jmcrae’s post, or at least ask for further clarification on j’s part. My reasoning is that murder is an alteration of form, not substance, (apples and oranges) if one accepts the etrnality of Soul, as do I, but in a rather different than usual way.

So, though it is true that the potentiality of a form of experience and choice is eliminated for a particular individual in the case of their murder, it is no way different *in substance *from that end coming from a trauma or disease, or “natuarally” for that matter.

In any case, if the universality of the ND experience is factored in, the chief lesson(s) to be learned from the Earth journey are independent of a timed experience of any particular duration. In fact, they are inherent in the process of dying, by whatever agency. This is in fact a tenet by extention of many philosophies that are based on a unitary explanation of existance as distinct from the fragmentary one we habitually and unconsciously utilize in Western culture. As far as I can see, both are vital for a proper understanding and exegesis of experience, so it is unfortunate that even the useful ones are deemed hertical by our Church.

My experience is that if they are understood in their simplicity, that understanding can bear/bare a revitalization of what for many is irellevant dogma and might bring some back to the Church. Unfortuantly, that would take a radical (worth looking up in the etymological dictonary) shift in perception, and like Blade and Blood contends, “Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion.”~K. Washburn. What will be missed, unfortunately, is that revitalization or rebirth in this case may be mistaken for “killing their religion.” How ironic is that?!

The inclusion of such unitary premisies as are offered by other systems in our considerations might eliminate such medieval dharma battles as are constantly taking polace on here between atheists and creationists of whatever stripe, both of whom have a part of the picture but neither percieving nor acknowledging that. Therefor useless and unfounded contentiousness will continue to rule the day, obscuring a greater possibility of insight for nearly all.

There is a final and absolute basis for morality in my opinion, but it is based on nothing mentioned in these forums so far, though it is clear from interpretations of scripture if read in such a way as to include factors we habitually deny or are ignorant of. The utter simplicity of these explanations, if one believes that Ocam’s razor is of any use, can end many of the debates on here. I am quite sure, on the other hand, that due to piety, no such consideration will happen on here for the most part, even if the validity of the inclusive stance might be acknowledged.

So you’re saying that culpability for murder is mitigated by the certain fact of the “eternality” of the Soul?

 

[Detales]

No.

 

[Leela]

Hi Ender,

If you believe that some moral systems are better then you must have some criteria with which you judge them. If you have such criteria then why do you find it unlikely that one system can be judged to meet those criteria better than all the others? My only other questions are: where did the criteria come from and why do you think they are valid (given that you can’t prove them)?

I think a big difference in our views is that I think that value judgments come first, and criteria and rationales for those judgments come second. Our minds are not often changed about right in wrong through reasoning so much as thorugh stories. While we explain our moral stances through reasoning, we adjust them only through experience and the substitute experince of stpories. The story of Jesus’s crucifiction is a good example of through which we learn the evil of scapegoating.

You can’t know absolutely that morality exists yet you don’t consider morality to be irrelevant. Your argument against an absolute moral standard is equally damaging to your belief that morality exists.

You are conflating the existence of morality with the existence of absolute moral standards.

No, you don’t. A Catholic finds his moral options constrained by what the Church teaches in the same way an architect finds his choices constrained by physical laws.

Not true. The individual chooses whether or not to abide by the teaching of the Church, and as you well know, most Catholics are of the “cafeteria” variety.

You are no more constrained than the author of a novel who may decide to give a character the ability to fly. There are no constraints on you other than the ones you arbitrarily choose.

Reality imposes the same sorts of contrainsts on morality as it does on your ability to fly. In reality, ome things really are better or worse for human well-being.

I think we would all agree that his behavior was immoral but can you articulate why?

Yes.

Can you know this with absolute certainty?

No, can you? Can anyone?

But I think we can be as sure that some things are wrong for people as we can be that some foods are bad for people.

Even with all of our knowledge of the physical laws we still can’t solve every problem - but that doesn’t mean one does not exist or that some other approach would be superior. I would point out, however, that as far as Catholic ethics are concerned it is not considered immoral to be wrong if you have tried your best to find the right solution.

Trying your best sound like a very useful absolute moral standard for right and wrong.

Best,
Leela

 

[Ender]

You are conflating the existence of morality with the existence of absolute moral standards.

I was employing the argument you use against the existence of absolute moral standards against your belief that morality exists. My point being that your argument is as damaging to your belief as you claim it is to mine.

Reality imposes the same sorts of contraints on morality as it does on your ability to fly. In reality, some things really are better or worse for human well-being.

The mass murderer and the suicide bomber don’t appear to experience any constraints and “better or worse” is not a specifically moral distinction.

Yes.

Then let me rephrase my comment: please explain why Rich’s behavior was immoral.

No, can you? Can anyone {know with absolute certainty}?

But this is your argument against the existence of absolute moral truth - that there is disagreement. If disagreement suffices to demolish the theory of absolute moral truth then it equally suffices to demolish the belief that any particular action is moral … or even that morality itself exists.

But I think we can be as sure that some things are wrong for people as we can be that some foods are bad for people.

Certainly - but this is a practical argument, not a moral one. It is an admonition to be careful; that is, it is the argument that one should avoid gluttony not because it is sinful but because being overweight is unhealthy.

Ender

 

[Leela]

I was employing the argument you use against the existence of absolute moral standards against your belief that morality exists. My point being that your argument is as damaging to your belief as you claim it is to mine.

I don’t see how. No one doubts that some things are better than others. The existence of morality is never in question since we all experience values.Plus, I’ve never argued that absolute moral standards don’t exist, I just doubt that they do and doubt that a convincing argument for any such standards will be forthcoming.

The mass murderer and the suicide bomber don’t appear to experience any constraints and “better or worse” is not a specifically moral distinction.

Well the suicide bomber winds up dead, so I’d say that is a very real constraint. And the mass murderer winds up in prison since we obviously can’t allow such people to be free in society.

Then let me rephrase my comment: please explain why Rich’s behavior was immoral.

I can’t imagine why anyone would need it explained that it is wrong to give false testimony that gets innocent people killed. What more needs to be said?

But this is your argument against the existence of absolute moral truth - that there is disagreement. If disagreement suffices to demolish the theory of absolute moral truth then it equally suffices to demolish the belief that any particular action is moral … or even that morality itself exists.

I’ve never argued that absolute moral standards do not exist–only that whether or not they do is irrelevant to the conversations we have about moral dilemmas. Solving the problem of the existence of moral standards still leaves us with the question of what those standards are, which is the same place we are in if we don’t bother arguing about whether absolute standards exist.

Certainly - but this is a practical argument, not a moral one. It is an admonition to be careful; that is, it is the argument that one should avoid gluttony not because it is sinful but because being overweight is unhealthy.

Physical health is used as an analogy. Morality is in large part about the health of society (as well as the well-being of individuals within society). As I understand the etymology of the term “sin”, it comes from the Hebrew for “missing the mark” in archery. It initially had no connotation of evil as it now does as used in Catholic theology.

I don’t think we need such a conception of sin as evil or succumbing to Satan to understand morality. “Missing the mark” is all we need. There are better and worse ways to behave. We don’t need to avoid certain behaviors because they are evil so much as because they are not as good as they can be. We have a better society if people behave morally, and behaving morally means to behave in such a way as to create a better society. Obviously better societies also protect individual liberties and promote education, scientific discovery, and art.

Best,
Leela

 

[Ender]

behaving morally means to behave in such a way as to create a better society.

Do you believe that people like Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot were “merely” psychopathic killers or that they were actually trying to create something and had no compunction about how many people they had to kill to accomplish their goal? I believe that each of them had an objective in mind, that killing was not an end in itself but was simply a means they were willing to employ.

My reason for bringing this up is that each in his own way was trying to create a “better society.” Each of the monsters I listed could - by your criteria - be deemed to have acted morally as their objectives were the same as yours: create a better society.

This is a moral code that justifies actions by the intentions behind them alone without regard to the specific acts committed. As you have insisted, if there are no moral absolutes then the murder of individuals - or even millions of them - is not specifically prohibited if the objectives are deemed worth the price.

Ender

 

[Leela]

Do you believe that people like Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot were “merely” psychopathic killers or that they were actually trying to create something and had no compunction about how many people they had to kill to accomplish their goal? I believe that each of them had an objective in mind, that killing was not an end in itself but was simply a means they were willing to employ.

My reason for bringing this up is that each in his own way was trying to create a “better society.” Each of the monsters I listed could - by your criteria - be deemed to have acted morally as their objectives were the same as yours: create a better society.

This is a moral code that justifies actions by the intentions behind them alone without regard to the specific acts committed. As you have insisted, if there are no moral absolutes then the murder of individuals - or even millions of them - is not specifically prohibited if the objectives are deemed worth the price.

If the issue is still about the importance of believing in absolutes, then the question should be whether or not these people believed in absolutes and how their belief or lack of belief on absolutes contributed to the evil of their regimes. I don’t know a whole lot about these people’s ideologies, but I suspect that they held dogmatic views about the absolute moral superiority of the state, the Communist system, or themselves. I see these as examples of dogmatism run amok rather than as examples of the danger of being too desirous of evidence in support of their beliefs or of the danger of having doubts as to the absolute rightness of their positions. I suspect that such attrocities only occur when people hold their views with absolute certainty.

Best,
Leela

 

[Ender]

I suspect that such attrocities only occur when people hold their views with absolute certainty.

Your argument is now becoming that it is preferable not to believe in anything at all; that somehow believing only that you might be right is better than actually thinking that you are right. You are fixated on the concept that certainty is always wrong. Are you certain of that?

I asked you earlier to explain why Richard Rich’s behavior was wrong and you answered “it is wrong to give false testimony that gets innocent people killed. What more needs to be said?” Do you not recognize that you are accepting that lying in such a case as his is objectively wrong? The reason why you “can’t imagine why anyone would need it explained” is because most people we recognized as civilized simply accept this belief as so obviously true it doesn’t need explanation. That is, it is believed (by you and I) with certainty.

It is not that certainty itself is wrong; we all hold some beliefs with absolute certainty. The issue between us is that we have different lists of things we believe and you object to my judging and acting according to my list because, inasmuch as it differs from yours, you believe I cannot know these things with certainty. You are perhaps right but your arguments are not directed at the contents of my list but to the existence of such a list (of certainties) without recognizing that if your arguments were valid they would demolish not only my list but your own.

That you recognize that the actions of such a one as Pol Pot as atrocities shows that you have a list of certainties. You need to find an argument that attacks the content of such lists, not their existence.

Ender

 

[Leela]

Your argument is now becoming that it is preferable not to believe in anything at all; that somehow believing only that you might be right is better than actually thinking that you are right. You are fixated on the concept that certainty is always wrong. Are you certain of that?

How could someone not believe anything? This isn’t about certainty in beliefs but about belief in absolutes that we can be certain of. My argument has been that in arguing for the rightness or wrongness of something, I can’t see how it helps your case to claim that it is not just wrong but ABSOLUTELY wrong. What is the difference? And how would it help anyone’s case to claim that they possess such an absolute?

I asked you earlier to explain why Richard Rich’s behavior was wrong and you answered “it is wrong to give false testimony that gets innocent people killed. What more needs to be said?” Do you not recognize that you are accepting that lying in such a case as his is objectively wrong? The reason why you “can’t imagine why anyone would need it explained” is because most people we recognized as civilized simply accept this belief as so obviously true it doesn’t need explanation. That is, it is believed (by you and I) with certainty.

Again, it’s not about being certain, but about being in possession of an absolute.

It is not that certainty itself is wrong; we all hold some beliefs with absolute certainty. The issue between us is that we have different lists of things we believe and you object to my judging and acting according to my list because, inasmuch as it differs from yours, you believe I cannot know these things with certainty.

I think we probably agree more or less on most issues, but we haven’t discussed many specific examples.

You are perhaps right but your arguments are not directed at the contents of my list but to the existence of such a list (of certainties) without recognizing that if your arguments were valid they would demolish not only my list but your own.

That you recognize that the actions of such a one as Pol Pot as atrocities shows that you have a list of certainties. You need to find an argument that attacks the content of such lists, not their existence.

I don’t think it has much do to with which things we say are right or wrong. The question is the difference between saying “that is wrong” and “that is absolutely wrong.” Can you explain the difference?

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think it has much do to with which things we say are right or wrong. The question is the difference between saying “that is wrong” and “that is absolutely wrong.” Can you explain the difference?

If it’s always wrong to lie in order to get an innocent person killed, then that’s an absolute. We all have absolutes - including those who say that there are no absolutes, because the statement “there are no absolutes” is also an absolute.

 

[Leela]

If it’s always wrong to lie in order to get an innocent person killed, then that’s an absolute. We all have absolutes - including those who say that there are no absolutes, because the statement “there are no absolutes” is also an absolute.

How can you be sure that it is always wrong to lie in order to get an innocent person killed if you have not considered every possible context? In other words, how can I be sure that there never has been and never will be a situation where a given behavior in question is better than the alternatives?

And what would it possibly add to an argument that I make that a specific behavior in a specific context is wrong for me to add the claim that this behavior is wrong in not just this context but every possible context?

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

How can you be sure that it is always wrong to lie in order to get an innocent person killed if you have not considered every possible context? In other words, how can I be sure that there never has been and never will be a situation where a given behavior in question is better than the alternatives?

I doubt that such a situation exists, and I doubt you can think of any, either.

And what would it possibly add to an argument that I make that a specific behavior in a specific context is wrong for me to add the claim that this behavior is wrong in not just this context but every possible context?

So that if there is ever any doubt, you know what the right thing is, to do. So that you can’t fall on the excuse of convenience, when it might be easier to tell a lie that would get an innocent person killed or hurt. By framing it as an absolute, you would reduce the chance of you doing something stupid in the heat of the moment that you would regret for the rest of your life.

 

[Ender]

This isn’t about certainty in beliefs but about belief in absolutes that we can be certain of.

I am lost. I see no linguistic or logical difference in saying:
“I believe X”;
“I believe X is true”;
“I believe X is absolutely true”;
“I am certain X is true.”

My argument has been that in arguing for the rightness or wrongness of something, I can’t see how it helps your case to claim that it is not just wrong but ABSOLUTELY wrong. What is the difference?

I agree: there is no difference - which is why I cannot understand your focus on this point.

And how would it help anyone’s case to claim that they possess such an absolute?

Whether we use the word or not we imply it when we say “I believe X”, otherwise we can only properly say “I believe X is overwhelmingly likely to be true” or “I believe X is probably true.” You keep hopping around this point. Do you believe that it is absolutely true that Richard Rich’s action was wrong? If you don’t then you have no basis for your earlier comment; if you do then you have no basis for this one.

Again, it’s not about being certain, but about being in possession of an absolute.

How else could one be certain?

The question is the difference between saying “that is wrong” and “that is absolutely wrong.” Can you explain the difference?

There is no real difference except that we are often imprecise with our speech and sometimes say “That is wrong” when we really mean “I think that is probably wrong.”

I have never encountered such tenacity on a point that seems simply grammatical. It may be more offensive to some the hear “I know with absolute certainty that you are wrong.” than “You are wrong.” but these sentences mean the same thing.

Ender

 

[Leela]

I am lost. I see no linguistic or logical difference in saying:
“I believe X”;
“I believe X is true”;
“I believe X is absolutely true”;
“I am certain X is true.”
I agree: there is no difference - which is why I cannot understand your focus on this point.
Whether we use the word or not we imply it when we say “I believe X”, otherwise we can only properly say “I believe X is overwhelmingly likely to be true” or “I believe X is probably true.” You keep hopping around this point. Do you believe that it is absolutely true that Richard Rich’s action was wrong? If you don’t then you have no basis for your earlier comment; if you do then you have no basis for this one.
How else could one be certain?
There is no real difference except that we are often imprecise with our speech and sometimes say “That is wrong” when we really mean “I think that is probably wrong.”

I have never encountered such tenacity on a point that seems simply grammatical. It may be more offensive to some the hear “I know with absolute certainty that you are wrong.” than “You are wrong.” but these sentences mean the same thing.

Ender

If you see no difference, then we have no disagreement. This whole thread is about whether absolutes exist, and I’ve argued that the question has no pragmatic value. At this point it sounds like you are agreeing.

 

[Leela]

I doubt that such a situation exists, and I doubt you can think of any, either.

It’s one thing to doubt that such a situation will ever arrise (as I also do) and another to make the claim that no such situation could ever poissibly arrise. How could you know?

So that if there is ever any doubt, you know what the right thing is, to do. So that you can’t fall on the excuse of convenience, when it might be easier to tell a lie that would get an innocent person killed or hurt. By framing it as an absolute, you would reduce the chance of you doing something stupid in the heat of the moment that you would regret for the rest of your life.

Here is sounds like it is your claim of possesing absolutes that is a matter of convenience to avoid making mistakes in certain situations rather because it is true that you actually do possess absolutes.

 

[jmcrae]

Here is sounds like it is your claim of possesing absolutes that is a matter of convenience to avoid making mistakes in certain situations rather because it is true that you actually do possess absolutes.

I was showing how knowing without doubt what is the right thing to do is practical - I wasn’t saying that you could make something up, say that it’s absolutely true, and then follow that - because if it were wrong, you’d still be in trouble.

If someone says, “It could sometimes be okay to get someone else killed if it results in a benefit to myself,” this would result in irreversable and regrettable consequences - as happens to women who abort their unborn children.

They may go for years thinking it was fine to kill their child so that they could finish school, get a boyfriend, or whatever, but the day eventually comes when they realize that nothing they gained was ever worth that price. So, having an absolute that says “You may not kill the innocent, for any reason,” saves those women who believe it from making a terrible mistake, because it’s true, and not only because it’s a practical thing to believe that helps you to avoid agonizing over a hard decision or that makes the decision for you.

It’s one thing to doubt that such a situation will ever arrise (as I also do) and another to make the claim that no such situation could ever poissibly arrise. How could you know?

Because I trust that God, who made the rule, is a God who sees and knows all. He would be aware of any exceptions to the rule; yet, He doesn’t list any, or give any indication of such.

 

[Leela]

Do you think there are moral situations with no correct answer, or does the absolute moral code always have a right solution? Are these all simple questions for those who claim to possess moral absolutes?

There are stories from WWII of parents having to make the horrible choice of having to strangle their own crying babies so the group they were in wouldn’t be found by the Nazis.

Is killing an innocent always wrong?

Many Germans who hid Jews from the Nazis frequently lied about not having Jews hidden in their houses to protect them.

Is lying always wrong?

A friend confides to you that he has committed a particular crime and you promise never to tell. Discovering that an innocent person has been accused of the crime, you plead with your friend to give himself up. He refuses and reminds you of your promise. What should you do? In general, under what conditions should promises be broken?

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

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?