The modern classic "bad choice" is the one forced upon Sophie. Meryl Streep made it infamous (she won the Academy Award for Best Actress), bringing William Styron's novel to life.
If you can't bear to watch the video (linked above), the bottom line is that the Sophie had to choose between her children. Not which one would live with her, but which one would live. Meaning, yes, that the other would die. It sounds like a case study for a Lifeboat Ethics philosophy class (or in my case, Moral Reasoning 22) - the Nazis are always good for the "bad guy," and Sophie's Choice is no exception.
Most of the "bad choices" on this blog are where the outcome of the decision is "bad" - for whatever reason. The outcome of Sophie's choice is terrible - her daughter dies - even though her son survives. But being forced to make such a choice is nearly as bad (okay, no, I don't think that's true...the murder of a child trumps most "bad," but the trauma in the mother's process is not good by any means). That is, not only is the outcome of the decision bad, but the making of the decision is bad as well.
There are other decisions where the making of the decision is bad, even though the outcome of the decision is not objectively evil (in case you weren't sure). My oldest personal example of this realization is the decision I had to make during the summer between tenth and eleventh grade. Namely, to continue in the new school I attended for tenth grade, or to switch to a (another) new school. I took a piece of paper (back when the world depended on paper) and folded it in half, vertically. On one side, I made a list of the pros and cons of the first school on each side of the fold, and on the other side, I made a list of pros and cons of the other school. Both options had serious pros and some not-insignificant cons. The choice was excruciating - but fundamentally, it was between "good" and "good" (in the end, it didn't matter - my parents made the final decision, and I ended up switching....and it was surely better for me (since when are parents right?), but even this many years later, where much of my life-experience has followed well from that pivot point, I'm hard-pressed to think that remaining in place would have been actually "bad").
The problem, back then, was that I wanted the pros of the one school AND the pros of the other school. In retrospect, I did experience both - sequentially, instead of simultaneously.
I faced another such conflict between "good" and "good" (this time, characterized as such by my mother, who told me she supported me in whatever I decided - why do parents only make decisions for you when you don't want them to, and not when you do?!?) when I was in college and making summer plans: educational camp counselor in Pennsylavania (TVI, for those in the know) or in Russia with the newly founded YUSSR (to Odessa, if I recall correctly). A less seminal decision to be sure, but it seemed to me at the time that either direction could pull me dramatically. Perhaps staying in the U.S. did have lasting impact...at least in terms of whom I'm friends with today, some of whom I spent that summer with, and likely would not have known as well otherwise. Also in terms of who I became as a teacher - since I began my stint as a first-year-teacher (that only happens once) on the heels of a month of preparation that wouldn't have happened if I'd gone to the FSU. And who knows what would have happened had I been in Russia during the coup d'etat (it might have been exciting, but I think it would have freaked out my mother who "supported me in either decision").
The outcomes of these decisions were good - that's what it means to choose between the "good" and the "good"! But the angst I suffered through the drama of weighing the pros, the cons, the potential implications, and finally, just trying to figure out what I myself honestly wanted...not so good. Not easy. Not fun. Even bad. Moreover, hindsight is 20-20. The "good" in both options is not necessarily readily apparent. Nor is all good created equal. Don't you always seek the "better"? I do. Nearly always.
This kind of decision seems to be my lot. Truth be told, I suppose I'm grateful for that.
In being able to see the upsides and the downsides to most things, each time I face a choice that is not obvious (the bad outcome is usually the obvious thing to avoid), I find myself in that kind of angst. I've gotten better at it. I no longer (rarely) fold a piece of paper in two - nor the moral virtual equivalent. And I'm glad to have both the choice and the ability to choose (angst-inducing though it may be).
No comments:
Post a Comment