Additional Note Added September 26, 2015 I do not remember for sure what I meant by the phrase, "unless perhaps force was needed rather than words, etc" but perhaps I meant unless the proper thing is to kill the Nazi to prevent the Nazi from murdering people rather than to only use words.
Copyright
Copyright
August 30, 2010
Carl Janssen
I was in a class studying holocaust literature. And the teacher asked the class two moral questions similar to the following.
Question 1
You are a mother. A Nazi says he will not murder one of two your sons, if you choose which son he will murder, otherwise he will kill both. What should you do?
Question 2
One of the people in the concentration camp needs medicine in order to survive. A Nazi guard says he will give the medicine only if you have sex with him. Should you have sex with the Nazi guard to save the person’s life? What should you do?
Before I give an answer to these questions I will point out that I am not trying to say that I would have made a better decision than the decisions of those involved in such difficult situations, nor am I trying to say anything disrespectful to those involved in such difficult decisions.
The following is my response to the two questions.
People make the assumption that your behavior affects the behavior of the Nazi. It is a common assumption in Psychology that people’s behavior is caused by factors and follows scientific models. When one makes this fundamental assumption it is as though the behavior of the Nazi guard is not chosen by the guard but chosen by the individual who is offered a moral compromise by the guard as well as other factors. In reality this is unrealistic, for if it is true it might follow that the person offered the moral compromise can not make a decision either for their behavior would also be caused not chosen.
In reality people have the ability to make choices, if someone were to tell the Nazi to not murder any of her sons, or to give the medicine without sex in exchange, the Nazi could still choose to give the medicine or not murder the sons, because the Nazi’s behavior is not completely caused by the person offered the compromise. If the person offered the compromise says, “No” to the wicked agreement and the Nazi, murders someone, the person offered the compromise will not be responsible for the death (unless perhaps force was needed rather than words, etc), instead the Nazi will be held responsible because it is the Nazi who is the one who really choose the action that the Nazi did.
In this case when psychological views of cause and effect for behavior are used as a model for morality, an individual is potentially encouraged to compromise morally. I believe a better view is to assume people can make choices and we should not make a wrong choice in order to appease someone else not to make a wrong choice because their behavior is chosen.
