Reply to Topic
Two movies: Sunshine (2007) and Stowaway (2021)
Two Characters: "Cassie" and "Zoe"
Similar Status: Not at the top of the decision hierarchy, but part of a small team.
The same problem: Not enough air. Everyone will dies unless someone dies.
The same proposed solution: Utilitarian calculus - a "skin in the game" trolley problem where there seems to be only one "right" answer -- KILL!.
The same objection emerged from both characters: Doesn't matter. It is still wrong. Don't do it.
Cassie reports that she understands the logic, but refuses to participate in a decision to take a life. She refuses to play the consequentialist game. This character refuses to play a hand.
Zoe, on the other hand, makes the case for hope, arguing that the risk of not killing (everyone dying) is worth the reward (everyone living). In essence, she plays the game and pushes her chis "all in."
In both cases we have an apparently "feminine" critique of cold consequentialist logic, a rejection of treating human lives instrumentally. Is this an essentially feminine critique of such logic (i.e., is this a feminist critique of omelets/eggs logic?). Or do these two characters just happen to be female? Or is the female characterization in itself subtly misogynist in imagining that it is a female character who would be unable to accept a hard but logical decision? Or is it subtly misandrist in imagining that man would not/could not make such a decision? I am not quite sure how to pin it, but it does seem like a sort of "imagined" female voice interjected over cold instrumentalism. A few more instances, and it could be a trope (the conscientious objector trope or something).
WARNING: "Look not here oh faint of heart! Spoilers!" spoilers below
In Sunshine a character kills himself, thus no decision needs to be made. In Stowaway, necessity gets worse, requiring the more risky solution proposed by Zoe).