Final essay: The moral choice of a person in war
(395 words) War is one of the most serious tests not only for a person, but for the whole world. It is in such extreme circumstances that character is best demonstrated, because in war everything goes to the extreme. Everyone faces a moral choice. Death or life, honor or betrayal, good and evil. Many writers have discussed this.
In V. Bykov’s story “Sotnikov,” Sotnikov and Rybak were faced with a choice when they were captured by the Germans. The heroes went on reconnaissance and for provisions for the partisan detachment, but a battle broke out. They entered the village and were caught in the attic of one of the village residents. And Rybak, the best partisan, was afraid of death and told about everything he could. He handed over his detachment, Sotnikov, the village headman and the unfortunate woman. Sotnikov, who was sick and coughing, because of which the Germans found them, did not give in under any torture, he saved not himself, but others. The main character was killed, but the Fisherman survived. But how can he survive with this? This is the price to pay for the choice you make. And although Rybak reassures himself that now he will kill all his enemies and go to his own, he has already entered into an agreement with them and he has no way back.
In B. Vasilyev’s story “The Dawns Here Are Quiet,” Sergeant Major Vaskov and his small squad of female anti-aircraft gunners faced a choice: accept a hopeless battle or let the enemy pass. The Germans found a passage in the rear, and one of the girls noticed it. Vaskov received an order from the military authorities to “catch” the Nazis. However, it turned out to be not so simple; there were much more enemies. No reinforcements arrived. The foreman had five girls who were inexperienced in military affairs. Rita Osyanina, Zhenya Komelkova, Lisa Brichkina, Sonya Gurvich, Galya Chetvertak died during this mission, but they all made a heroic choice. The greatest heroism is that, in fact, there was no choice. The young girls did not think that there might be too much good ahead to die now. They did not praise themselves for being so noble. How can you think about this when the Motherland is in danger? Victory in the Great Patriotic War was possible precisely thanks to such people who made terrible choices and put their young lives on the line. And they could not go any other way.
If an ordinary person in peacetime is faced with a choice like “go to one job or another... the first one seems to be more interesting, but the second one pays more,” then during war life is at stake. It is very important to make the right choice, because the pangs of conscience later can be worse than death.
Author: Maria Blinova
“The problem of a person’s moral choice in war”
Perhaps in many years people will return to the topic of the Great Patriotic War. But they will be able to reconstruct events only by studying documents and memoirs. This will come later. And now those who courageously stood up to defend our country in the summer of 1941 are still alive. Memories of the horrors of war are still fresh in their hearts. Vasil Bykov can also be called such a person. V. Bykov depicts war and man in war - “without touch, without bragging, without varnishing - as it is.” There is no pomposity or excessive solemnity in his works.
The author writes about the war as an eyewitness, as a person who has experienced the bitterness of defeat, the severity of losses and losses, and the joy of victory. He, by his own admission, is not interested in combat technology, but in the moral world of man, his behavior in war in crisis, tragic, hopeless situations. His works are united by one common idea - the idea of choice. The choice between death, but the death of a hero, and a cowardly, miserable existence. The writer is interested in the brutally severe test that each of his heroes must go through: can he not spare himself in order to fulfill his duty to the Motherland, his duties as a citizen and patriot? War was such a test of a person’s ideological and moral strength.
Using Bykov's story "Sotnikov" as an example, we will consider the difficult problem of heroic choice. Two main characters, two partisans... But how different they are in their worldview!
The fisherman is a seasoned partisan who has risked his life more than once. Sotnikov, who volunteered for the task partly because of his pride. Sick, he did not want to tell the commander about it. The fisherman asked why he remained silent when the other two refused, to which Sotnikov replied: “That’s why he didn’t refuse, because the others refused.” From the first lines of the story, it seems that both heroes will play a positive role until the very end. They are brave, ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of a goal, and from the very beginning their rather kind attitude towards each other is felt. But gradually the situation begins to change. Bykov slowly reveals Rybak's character. The first signs of something alarming appear in the scene of a conversation with the village headman. The fisherman was about to shoot the old man, but, having learned that he was not the first to think of it, he hesitates (“... he did not want to be like someone. He considered his intentions fair, but, having discovered someone else similar to his own, he perceived his own already in a slightly different light"). This is the first step in shaping the image of the Fisherman. At night, Rybak and Sotnikov stumble upon policemen. The behavior of the Fisherman is the second touch. Bykov writes: “As always, in the moment of greatest danger, everyone took care of themselves, took their fate into their own hands. As for Rybak, his legs saved him many times during the war.” Sotnikov falls behind, comes under fire, and his partner runs to save his own skin. And only one thought makes Rybak return: he thinks about what he will say to his comrades who remained in the forest...
At the end of the night, the partisans reach another village, where a woman and children hide them. But even here they are discovered by the police. And again Rybak had one thought: “... suddenly he wanted Sotnikov to rise first. Still, he is wounded and sick, and besides, it was he who gave away both of them with a cough; he had better reason to surrender.” And only the fear of death forces him to get out of the attic. The third stroke. The most striking and meaningful episode is the interrogation scene. And how different the behavior of the heroes is!
Sotnikov bravely endures torture, but not even the thought flashed through his head about betraying his comrades. Sotnikov is not afraid of death or his tormentors. He not only tries to take the blame of others and thereby save them, but it is important for him to die with dignity. His main goal is to lay down his soul “for his friends,” without trying to buy himself an unworthy life with prayers or betrayal.
And Rybak? From the very beginning of the interrogation, he fawns over the investigator, readily answers questions, although he tries to lie. The fisherman, who has always found a way out of any situation, tries to outwit the enemy, not realizing that, having taken such a path, he will inevitably come to betrayal, because he has already put his own salvation above the laws of honor and camaraderie. Finding himself in a hopeless situation, Rybak, in the face of imminent death, became cowardly, preferring animal life to human death. When investigator Portnov invites him to become a policeman, Rybak thinks about it. “Through a moment of confusion within himself, he suddenly clearly felt freedom, space, even a light breath of fresh wind in the field.” He began to cherish the hope that he would be able to escape. In the basement the heroes meet again. The fisherman asks Sotnikov to confirm his testimony. A shameful thought creeps into his head: “... if Sotnikov dies, then his, Rybak’s, chances will improve significantly. He can say whatever he wants, there are no other witnesses here.” He understood the inhumanity of his thoughts, but he was in favor of the fact that it would make him better. The fisherman consoled himself with the fact that if he turned out, he would pay for Sotnikov’s life and for his fears.
And now the day of execution comes... Together with the partisans, innocent people must go to the gallows: the woman who sheltered them, the village elder, the Jewish girl Basya. And then Sotnikov makes the only right decision for himself. On the steps of the gallows, he admits that he is a partisan, that it was he who wounded the policeman last night. The fisherman fully reveals his essence, making a desperate attempt to save his life. He agrees to become a policeman... But that's not all. The fisherman crosses the last line when he kills his comrade with his own hands. The ending of the story. The fisherman decides to hang himself. He is tormented by his conscience, which he could not drown out. In saving himself, he not only executes his former comrade - he does not even have enough determination to face the death of Judas: it is symbolic that he tries to hang himself in the restroom, even at some point he is almost ready to throw himself head down - but does not dare. However, spiritually the Fisherman is already dead (“And although they left him alive, they were also liquidated in some respects”), and suicide still would not have saved him from the shameful stigma of a traitor.
But even here Bykov shows us that the repentance was not sincere: having decided to die, Rybak cannot part with a life so valuable to him, for the sake of which he betrayed the most sacred things - military friendship and his honor. The heroes of Vasil Bykov teach us lessons of honor, courage, and humanity. A person must always make a choice - war makes this choice tragic. But the essence remains the same, it does not change, since Bykov’s favorite heroes follow only the call of their hearts, act honestly and nobly. And only then can a person be called a “hero” in the best sense of the word.
“No person... can be a means or an instrument either for the good of another person, or for the good of an entire class, or, finally, for the so-called common good,” wrote Vladimir Solovyov. In war, people become just such a means. War is murder, and to kill means to violate one of the commandments of the Gospel - to kill is immoral.
Therefore, in war, another problem arises - preserving human dignity. However, what helps many people survive, remain strong in spirit and believe in a worthy future is precisely the idea of never betraying one’s own principles, preserving one’s humanity and morality. And if a person accepted these laws as the goal of his life and never violated them, never “put his conscience in his pocket,” then it will be easier for him to survive in war. An example of such a person is the hero of Vyacheslav Kondratiev’s story “Sashka”. When he was in the most difficult situations, he often faced the most difficult choice, but he always remained human and chose morality. Sashka lives honestly, so that “people are not ashamed to look them in the eye.” He is sympathetic, humane, ready to die if it helps another. Proof of these qualities of Sashka are all his actions. For example, it deserves deep respect that he reached under the bullets to get the company’s felt boots, sympathizing with his commander, who had to walk in wet boots: “I would never have climbed for myself, if these felt boots had been wasted.” But I feel sorry for the company commander!”
Sashka considers himself responsible for his company comrades. To do this, he again takes risks. The hero of the story generously saves his hot-tempered, but honest and good comrade Lieutenant Volodka from troubles, possibly even the tribunal, by taking his guilt upon himself.
Sashka is surprisingly persistent and honest in keeping his word. There is no way he can break his promise. “Propaganda,” mutters the German. “What propaganda for you! – Sashka is indignant. - This is your propaganda! But we have the truth.” Sashka promised that the leaflet, which said that the Soviet command guaranteed life, food and human treatment to the Germans who surrendered, was true. And once he said it, Sashka is obliged to fulfill his promise, no matter how difficult it may be.
That is why he violates the battalion commander’s order by not shooting a German who refuses to testify, and failure to comply with the order leads to a tribunal. Tolik cannot understand such an act, he believes: “Our job is a calf’s - ordered - done!” But Sashka is not a “calf”, not a blind performer. For him, the main thing is not just to carry out the order, but to decide how best to fulfill the super task for which he gave the order. That is why Sashka behaves this way in a situation when the Germans unexpectedly broke into the grove. “In the middle of the patch, their beaten and killed company was crowded around a political instructor wounded in the leg. He waved his carbine and shouted:
- Not a step! Not a step back! - The company commander's order is to retreat into the ravine! - Sashka shouted. “And not a step from there!” Sashka cannot help but keep his word even when he promises the wounded man to save him: “Do you hear? I'll go. Just be patient, I'll be there in a moment. And I'll send orderlies. You trust me... believe.” And how can Sashka deceive a wounded man who believes him? Wounded in the arm, he not only sends orderlies, but goes with them, under bullets, afraid that his mark on the ground has been erased, that the orderlies will not find the person to whom Sashka promised!
Performing all these actions that are surprising in their kindness, compassion and humanity, Sashka not only does not demand to be thanked for this, but does not even think about it. For him, it’s just natural to help people, risking his own life. But the one who thinks that Sashka, while committing these actions, is not afraid and does not want to live is mistaken. And Sashka “in the offensive, and in reconnaissance - all this is through strength, overcoming himself, driving fear and thirst to live deep down, to the very bottom of his soul, so that they do not interfere with him doing what he is supposed to do, what is necessary.”
However, not everyone can always act like Sasha. Sometimes people become bitter in war and do not always make the right choice. This is evidenced by hundreds of examples. Thus, a person in war is constantly faced with a choice: preserving his life or his own dignity, devotion to an idea or self-preservation.
At the center of the writer’s artistic world is a man in the space and time of war. The circumstances associated with this time and space encourage and force a person to truly exist. There is something in it that causes admiration, and something that disgusts and frightens. But both are genuine. In this space, that fleeting hour is chosen when a person has nothing and no one to hide behind, and he acts. This is a time of movement and action. Time of defeat and victory. A time of resisting circumstances in the name of freedom, humanity and dignity.
Unfortunately, even in peaceful life a person does not always remain a person. Perhaps, after reading some works of military prose, many will think about the issue of humanity and morality, and will understand that remaining human is the most worthy goal of life.
Our country won victory over Germany only thanks to the courage of the people, their patience and suffering. The war crippled the lives of everyone who had anything to do with it. It was not only the Great Patriotic War that brought so much suffering. Today, the same suffering is caused by the war in Chechnya and Iraq. Young people, our peers, who have not yet done anything for their country or for their family, are dying there. Even if a person comes back from war alive, he still cannot live an ordinary life. Anyone who has ever killed, even against their own will, will never be able to live like an ordinary person; it is not for nothing that they are called the “lost generation.”
I believe that there should never be war at all. It only brings pain and suffering. Everything needs to be settled peacefully without blood and tears, suffering and grief.
