I really have a difficult time grasping the reasoning behind the concept of dying for another person. Now, I’m not really reffering to dying in things like wars or fighting, I’m simply talking about one single person giving up his life so that another single person can continue to stay alive.
Consider the classic lifeboat-scenerio:
[b]
EITHER WAY, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE SOMETHING!
So, in light of all this, why would you EVER let your own self be the very thing which is going to be lost? Is it not contrary to all reason to not fight as hard as you can to retain personal existence in every situation, no matter what it might cost?
I’ll give you that I don’t condemn such a practice when it involves true love for another (such as donating one’s heart or some other vital organ that is needed for immdeiate transplant). But, does love overrule the simple fact that one still can not logically rationalize such an action?
Sorry if this is sort of confussing…
[/b]
just my humble thoughts, anyways…
Given this particular circumstance, I think I would probably chance it with the 2 year old child… I mean how heavy could it be?
But provided the kid was just heavy enough to sink the boat I’d probably go with the old man… he’s a liability in the first place, he might die anyways.
Yeah he’s wise… but if he’s wise enough he would volunteer himself anyways.
Let ‘you’ consider that one of the passengers is you.
That way the example makes sense. At least for you.
Let you consider that the other three are your wife and two children.
I hope you are feeling better. I hope you never have to make that choice.
On the other hand.
We are evolved from animals so look at them. They would fight to the death for their young if there is a chance to save them, but abandon them if it makes more sense. If there is no food animals stop nursing and abandon their offspring to save themselves, the young would die ether way.
Back to your little question.
D E P E N D S !
Is it a rowboat or a sailboat?
Are there any sharks around?
How long before help arrives?
Blah blah blah
Okay, I apologize for the technical shortcoming of my analogy, but please do not let that interfer with my original point.
My point was: If you know that either you or someone else has to die, why would you ever volunteer to be the one to die? I know people would answwer that you volunteer yourself out of love to the other person.
But what good is love if you are no longer able to continue giving it (since you died)?
I personally do not ascribe to the position that mankind is merely an advanced “animal”. This is true isn the same sense that we do not call a tree or flower an animal. There lies fundamental differences within each creature (human, animal, and plant) that allows us to make a clear distiction between the three. The ability to reason distinguishes us from animals and plants, etc.
I do not mean to sound like the most selfish person who ever lived. But seriously, what gives? I suppose I based my entire argument on the presupposition that love is only given with the subconcoius intent of being recipocated back. People only love when they, themselves, desire love. It may not actually feel like this when we love another, but that is because it is so incredibly instictual. I mean, look at the theory of the “failure to thrive” with babies. Doctors believe that for some unknown reason, babies whose mother does not show them basic elements of maternal love tend to be incredibly prone to dying at an early age. The mother loves the child because the child is part of her ownself. The child, when it is cognitively capable of doing so, will become incredibly attached to the mother because it finds all of it’s life-essential needs taken care of by the mother.
This is what I mean by true instinctional love. So, in order for one to die for another, the love must be to an altruistic degree. You can’t love yourself by dieing. So, in the case of dying for another, I personally feel that love extends purely towards that other person and not at all towards one’s own self.
But is it really worth dying for? Sorry if this is terriibly confussing…
I don’t think you’re being confusing at all, BMW Guy. It’s just a question of value. I value my son’s life more than my own, for example. Consequently, the decision to give my life for his would be an easy one to make. You might be right that most love “is only given with the subconscious intent of being reciprocated back.†But there are other loves that are more than this. And when one experiences such a love, one values the other more so than oneself. I wouldn’t exactly call it a sacrifice, however. There would simply be no choice, really.
As a parent, making the overt choice to save the life of my child, or another child, is a given. Children are the small bastion of hope still remaining in this world. I, myself, would reduce this entire planet to ashes if it meant the continued life of my any of my children.
In the scenario given, my choice would be simple, even if I was the person. The politician is part of the construct of corrupted/corruptible social authority and is the least necessary.
The experience and wisdom of the aged man is all to necessary.
The Doctor also represents hope and necessity as one who can save the lives of many others, (theoretically).
The 2 year old is eminent life, which it is unjust to allow to be extinguished, children most often represent high value to all societies, as it is not known what they will come to do in adulthood that could irrevocably change the world.
The politician represents the unnecessary and replacable individual.
This scenario also begs the inquiries: Why should we value our life more than the life others? Is it not the summation of the narcissitic delusion of self-importance that makes us categorize the value of another life?
