The Lesser Of Two Evils
I have always loved playing 'paradoxical games' where I create hypothetical and sometimes illogical scenarios and ask people what would they do. It's really interesting to hear their justifications and reasonings for their choices.
There's a book called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". It's a short story about a utopia called Omelas. People there live prosperously in an abundance of joy with days full of festivities. A fairytale land where people daydream to run away to. However, this gaiety of everyone comes with a price, they must make sure that one innocent child will always be kept away in despair; shrouded in perpetual darkness, crouched among his own filth and diseases, forbiddened to ever be cared for and never allowed to taste any tenderness of love. Anyone who break the rule would jeopardise not only themselves but put the land under a curse, turning into a dystopia. To succumb to the rules and turn an eye away from such evil, surpressing one's humanity or to be the vigilante who saves one but kills all?How would or, could one choose? Sometimes even if the balance tips over, showing us the lesser of two evils, the price is nevertheless too hefty to pay. The only thing you could do is walk away.
After watching Big Fish And Begonia, a question that I thought I have answered firmly for myself, resurfaced. Taunting me to reconsider. The question posed goes like this (with a bit of changes):
"You've found your soulmate. But there are choices to be made. If she/he is to live, you'll have to take 10 innocent lives. But if those 10 people are to live, you will have to kill her/him."
What would you do?
Take 10 innocent lives. I'll choose 10 of those who had wanted to be euthanised but could not do so due to legal reasons!
ReplyDelete