That is, I finally assumed my Greekness… I saw that I was the only person left in that square who had the freedom left to choose…" The very importance that Conchis attaches to this type of morality and freedom of choice, even to the detriment of his own life, is in itself subjective and reactionary. After being forced to witness the full horror of what the German morality was capable of, Conchis found himself driven to ultimately resist it, regardless of its consequences. It is a type of ethics that refuses to accept as true anything beyond its own reason and paradigms. This is also true of the decision-making process at the basis of Colonel Wimmel's moral actions, questionable though they may be.

Colonel Wimmel subscribes to the collective ethical subjectivism of the Nazi German paradigm. This is summed up in the Conchis's criticism (p. 393):

"One of the great fallacies of our time is that the Nazis rose to power because they imposed order on chaos. Precisely the opposite is true -- they were successful because they imposed chaos on order. They tore up the commandments, they denied the superego…"

The Nazi belief in their cause was based upon a collective belief in the reality of their order. Indeed, Wimmel himself claims the reasons for his atrocious actions as being based upon his nature as a "realist" (p. 388). Later he notes that nothing is more important to him than the order he perceives as the highest purpose of his existence and his actions. This, along with the clear fallacy of the belief, is a typically subjectivist belief system.

It is the extremity and strength of this belief that temporarily drove Conchis to the belief that he had not choice. When collective subjectivism imposes itself upon the individual, the individual morality can be influenced to such an extent that it changes the individual's own moral system, whether this is subjectivist or...

When Conchis reverts to his "Greekness," he simply exchanges one subjectivist morality for another.
On the other hand, there is also some indication of the utilitarian ethical decision making process in the narrative. Utilitarianism concerns the drive to create the greatest good for the greatest number of persons involved. For the most part of the narrative, Conchis is not greatly concerned with creating the good for the most persons possible. Indeed, his decision making is decidedly individualistic and narrow. However, when Wimmel forces him to make a decision regarding the murder of the two hostages, there is a brief consideration of utilitarianism. Indeed, Conchis compares various possible outcomes during his decision-making process. Murdering the two men would save the most lives; this would be the most utilitarian decision to make. He briefly compares this with the possibility of murdering Wimmel instead, but quickly discards this as the greater of the two evils, as the whole village would probably pay with their lives.

Wimmel's final decision, in the light of the fresh horror of having to beat the men to death, is based upon the subjectivism of his chosen Greek morality; the collective morality of resistance.

In conclusion, utilitarian ethics only plays a small part in the narrative, and never fully culminates in a decision. All of Conchis's decisions are based upon ethical subjectivism, whether as a reaction to the Nazis and their imposed ethics, or as a personal decision to change the basis for his decision-making process. The process itself remains subjective in the light of a perceived truth, regardless of consequence. The same is true for Wimmel, his army, and their decision-making processes. People are tortured and maimed to further the Nazi cause, for what they believe to be an imposition of order. All the decisions made in the narrative are therefore based upon ethical subjectivism.