Is A Forced Choice Still a Choice? And is it an Ethical (of a Group System) Choice or a Moral (Personal Responsibility) Choice?

 

What is Existentialism?

from Google AI:

Existentialism is a 20th-century philosophical movement emphasizing individual freedom, responsibility, and subjectivity, famously summarized by Jean-Paul Sartre as "existence precedes essence". It posits that individuals define their own purpose and values in an inherently meaningless or "absurd" universe. Key themes include authenticity, anxiety, and the necessity of creating meaning through choices. 

Core Beliefs and Key Concepts 

Existence Precedes Essence: Humans are not born with a pre-defined purpose or nature (essence); they exist first and define themselves through actions. 

Radical Freedom and Responsibility: Individuals are entirely free to choose their actions but are consequently responsible for the consequences, which creates angst or "anguish"
.
The Absurd: The conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the "silent," meaningless universe. 

Authenticity: Living in accordance with one's own self-created values, rather than conforming to societal pressures or roles. 

Bad Faith (Mauvaise foi): A form of self-deception where individuals adopt false values or pretend they are not free to escape the anxiety of their own freedom. 

Subjectivity: The belief that truth is not objective but found in personal experience. 

Role of the Individual and Meaning 

Individual Sovereignty: The individual is the sole creator of their own morality and meaning. 

Meaning Creation: Because the world lacks inherent meaning, individuals must construct their own purpose, meaning, and values. 

Key Thinkers 

Søren Kierkegaard: Considered the "father of existentialism," focusing on subjective truth and anxiety.
Jean-Paul Sartre: Developed the core tenet of "existence precedes essence".
Albert Camus: Explored the absurd, famously in The Myth of Sisyphus.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Influenced the movement with concepts of the "will to power" and "revaluation of values".
Simone de Beauvoir: Explored themes of freedom and the construction of self.

Criticisms of Existentialism

Subjectivism: Criticized for reducing morality to personal preference, potentially leading to nihilism. 

Overemphasis on Freedom: Critics argue it ignores the constraints of social, historical, and material conditions. 

Lack of Structure: Accused of providing no clear ethical guidelines for society. 

Pessimism: Frequently accused of being overly focused on despair, anxiety, and death.

Excerpt from Letter from Isaiah Berlin to George Kennan (1951)

When armies were slaughtered by other armies in the course of history, we might be appalled by the carnage and turn pacifist; but our horror acquires a new dimension when we read about children, or for that matter grown-up men and women, whom the Nazis loaded into trains bound for gas chambers, telling them that they were going to emigrate to some happier place. Why does this deception, which may in fact have diminished the anguish of the victims, arouse a really unutterable kind of horror in us? The spectacle, I mean, of the victims marching off in happy ignorance of their doom amid the smiling faces of their tormentors? Surely because we cannot bear the thought of human beings denied their last rights--of knowing the truth, of acting with at least the freedom of the condemned, of being able to face their destruction with fear or courage, according to their temperaments, but at least as human beings, armed with the power of choice. It is the denial to human beings of the possibility of choice, the getting them into one's power, the twisting them this way and that in accordance with one's whim, the destruction of their personality by creating unequal moral terms between the gaoler and the victim, whereby the gaoler knows what he is doing, and why, and plays upon the victim, i.e. treats him as a mere object and not as a subject whose motives, views, intentions have any intrinsic weight whatever--by destroying the very possibility of his having views, notions of a relevant kind--that is what cannot be borne at all.

What else horrifies us about unscrupulousness if not this? Why is the thought of someone twisting someone else round his little finger, even in innocent contexts, so beastly (for instance in Dostoevsky's Dyadyushkin son [Uncle's Dream, a  published in 1859], which the Moscow Arts Theatre used to act so well and so cruelly)? After all, the victim may prefer to have no responsibility; the slave be happier in his slavery. Certainly we do not detest this kind of destruction of liberty merely because it denies liberty of action; there is a far greater horror in depriving men of the very capacity for freedom--that is the real sin against the Holy Ghost. Everything else is bearable so long as the possibility of goodness--of a state of affairs in which men freely choose, disinterestedly seek ends for their own sake--is still open, however much suffering they may have gone through. Their souls are destroyed only when this is no longer possible. It is when the desire for choice is broken that what men do thereby loses all moral value, and actions lose all significance (in terms of good and evil) in their own eyes; that is what is meant by destroying people's self-respect, by turning them, in your words, into rags. This is the ultimate horror because in such a situation there are no worthwhile motives left: nothing is worth doing or avoiding, the reasons for existing are gone. We admire Don Quixote, if we do, because he has a pure-hearted desire to do what is good, and he is pathetic because he is mad and his attempts are ludicrous

Sofie's "Choice" was a false choice made under the Ethics of Nazism, for which she bore no personal moral responsibility.  It was not a choice "freely/ disinterestedly" made.  It was a Rag's choice, made by one with no desire for the limited and false choice(s) offered.  Like the Hobbesian choices typically offered by political parties within a Democratic System, which is in itself a Hobson's choice.

from Google AI:

A Hobbesian choice, often confused with a "Hobson's choice," refers to a dire, coerced dilemma where one must choose between two equally terrible, destructive, or "evil" options, usually resulting in a loss of security or freedom. It stems from the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that life without a strong authority is a violent state of nature. 

Key Aspects of a Hobbesian Choice: 

The Ultimate Dilemma: Unlike a Hobson's choice (taking what is offered or nothing), a Hobbesian choice often involves selecting between, for example, a restrictive dictatorship or chaotic anarchy.  

Context: It arises in situations of intense conflict, fear, or profound instability where "safety" is gained only by giving up essential rights.  

Origin: The term is derived from 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, particularly his work Leviathan, which posits that people must submit to an absolute sovereign to avoid a "war of all against all".

Common Misconceptions:

Hobson's Choice: This is different. A Hobson's choice is simply taking what is offered or nothing at all (a take-it-or-leave-it, or illusion of choice), named after Thomas Hobson.  

Hobbesian Trap: A related but distinct concept, where two parties attack each other out of preemptive fear of the other, even if both prefer peace.

Much Like the Individual's Sadistic Super-Ego, Group Ideologies and Ethics Brook No Challenges or Dissent without Inflicting Punishment or Ostracism from the Group