Dilemma = a situation requiring a choice between equal alternatives. There are two types of Dilemmas: ‘Right – Right’ and ‘Harm-Harm.’ By its very nature, if we cannot dissolve the dilemma we are placed in a ‘forced-choice’ situation.
A ‘Right-Right Dilemma’ involves a choice between equal alternatives that are ‘right’ or ‘correct.’ For example, it might be ‘right’ to choose in favor of the individual and it might also be ‘right’ to choose in favor of the collective (team, community, organization, family, etc.). ‘Right-Right Dilemmas’ can be extremely challenging.
A ‘Harm-Harm Dilemma’ involves a choice between equal alternatives that are both ‘harm-full.’ For example, an organization might have to choose between the ‘harm’ caused for a person and his/her family if the person is laid off and the ‘harm’ caused to the organization if a person is not laid off. In either case, ‘harm will occur.’
I want to turn up the volume on the nature of ‘moral dilemmas’ by inviting us to consider the ‘moral harm-harm dilemma’ that Sophie faced (see William Styron’s powerful novel: Sophie’s Choice). This fictional dilemma was played out in a number of ‘real’ ways during WWII, especially in certain concentration camps.
Sophie and her two children are in a Nazi concentration camp. One day a guard approaches Sophie and offers her a choice: If she kills one of her two children, the other will live; if she refuses to choose, both children will die. In a sense her moral harm-harm dilemma is this: Is it worse to have two dead children than one? To up the ante, the guard has framed it so that it is truly ‘Sophie’s Choice’ – a moral choice that no parent should have to make.
Without these two competing choices there is no moral harm-harm dilemma. My sterile description ignores other moral questions; here are a few of them: Would it be wrong for Sophie to reject the guard’s offer and let both of her children die? Would Sophie be responsible for the deaths of her two children if she decided not to choose? What would happen if Sophie decided to kill herself in order avoid choosing one child over the other?
Sophie’s ‘moral harm-harm dilemma’ involves a conflict of competing duties. Sophie has responsibility as a mother/parent to protect both of her children. Even if she was constantly battling with one child and never with the other, she would still face the same dilemma. Simply stated: Personality traits do not provide the right kind of material for deciding another’s life, even though they may – and often do – bias our emotions one way or the other.
Step aside a moment, gentle reader, and imagine if the law allowed differences in personality to interfere with our judgments of justice and punishment. We might end up convicting a petty thief to life in prison on the basis of his arrogant sneer, while letting another petty thief off because of his warm, alluring smile.
Sophie chooses. She chooses to sacrifice her younger, smaller child – her daughter – in order to save her older, stronger son. After the war Sophie loses track of her son and, many years later, ridden by guilt and shame Sophie commits suicide.
Searcher-Seeker 
Leave a Reply