"Sophie's Choice" and Practical Reason in 'The Fragility of Goodness'

I will do an examination of the wider concept of "Moral Luck" as presented in Martha Nussbaum's 'The Fragility of Goodness', but will first speak to the "Sophie's Choice" situation that is presented in the second chapter.

The conflicts of the "Sophie's Choice" scenario are four-fold in an ascending manner. The base choice presented is between two choices of evil action. This is the decision itself, which splits into two confrontations with conscience- with the consideration of the killing of each of the persons in both choices. Then there is the conflict between "killing or not killing", which Ms. Nussbaum addresses, and then between "killing or being killed", which is the primary conflict.

The primary conflict is thus framed from the viewpoint of one who is "being forced by external circumstances or people, to make a choice between two evils".

The "Sophie's Choice" scenario proves without doubt that a theory of the individual as completely evil is wrong, and in fact proves the OPPOSITE. People in that situation, as in the movie, never say "to heck with it, kill em' all, I don't care". They choose the lesser evil, which is thus the greater good. The nature of man tends toward the Good. The victims of being put to that choice view their choice in the only way they can, which is to save as many lives as possible.

Nussbaum's depiction of the stages of reflection in the carrying out of the choice indicate that once denial is overcome, then the Kantian depiction- that there is no conflict between the principles of practical reason- holds. The choice is made and justified.