Saving a loved one IS a sacrifice

[airborne]

Initially the idea that saving a loved one at your own life's expensive made sense to me. Now it does not.

"If it is the man or women one loves, then one can be willing to give ones own life to save him or her - for the selfish reason that life without the loved one could be unbearable".

(VOS - pg 52)

There are many people who loose a loved one but still live. Life is not so unbearable that they commit suicide. If you decide not to save a loved one at your own life's expense the scenario could unfold in two ways.

1. You can not bear to live, so you commit suicide

2. You struggle at first but then find a reason to live

This is way better than just killing yourself to save a loved one because you think you couldn't live without them.

I remember on one of the Ayn Rand interviews on you tube(was it with Mike Wallace) that she said she would jump in front of a bullet to save her husbands life(this is after he had already died). If she coulden't bear to live without him why didn't she commit suicide? Did she suddenly find a reason to live? Doesn't that contradict her idea that she couldn't live without him so would be willing to trade her life for his survival?

[KendallJ]

This may be the clip you're thinking of.

I think you're thinking about it incorrectly. The first implicit idea is that all reasons for living are created equal.

Your item 2 is circular unless you give some reasons and their cause adn effect. Rand says "life... could be unbearable", and you essentially say "No, it couldn't" as a reason for why it couldn't, yet you're short on details there. The person Rand is talking about of course is a number one, which you dropped mysteriously in your subsequent analysis. If life is so unbearable that you commit suicide anyway, then why didn't one step up and at least save the other persons life in the first place?

I think most situations where one has the opportunity are not of the rationally thought out variety, but rather the split second decision where one's own death is uncertain. In that case, then, the idea is more that the difference between life without them and life with them is so stark (regardless of the purpose you find) that it is worth the risk. You might consider that you're setting yourself up for hesitation in these cases.

Frankly, I'd prefer that the love for whom I'd do this (and believe me I know I would) would be so great and so clear and focused in my mind that my actions would be automatic. Sort of like Ayn Rand in the video.

[thejohngaltline]

I've often had trouble with this idea myself, mainly because I get hung up on the reality that once you are dead, you can't value anything. So by killing yourself to save a loved one, you are giving up the ultimate value of your life, which must necessarily precede the (albeit huge) value of your relationship with this person.

I say this, however, realizing that there are circumstances in which I know I would act in a way that is incompatible with the above. Before my mom died, I would have done literally anything to save her life. And, now that she is gone, I often think that I would risk my life just to save what I have left of her--ie running into a burning house to retrieve photos, letters, etc. Maybe this disparity between my thought and my hypothesized action is the idea of risk Kendall is talking about. It's not for certain I would die in that burning house, but the pain of losing those mementos would be a guarantee.

An interesting passage to consider in conjunction with this is from The Fountainhead. Roark tells Wynand:

I could die for you, but I couldn't and wouldn't live for you.

Do you think Roark really would have died for Wynand?

EDIT: Just realized Roark says "could," not "would" die for him. So maybe he is just talking about the idea that one can die for another, not an imagined potentiality of Roark actually doing so for Wynand's sake.

Edited December 19, 2007 by thejohngaltline

[FeatherFall]

I remember on one of the Ayn Rand interviews on you tube(was it with Mike Wallace) that she said she would jump in front of a bullet to save her husbands life(this is after he had already died). If she coulden't bear to live without him why didn't she commit suicide? Did she suddenly find a reason to live? Doesn't that contradict her idea that she couldn't live without him so would be willing to trade her life for his survival?

If I have the opportunity to save someone I love, I would consider if I would respect myself less if I didn't act. Dying with self-respect is pretty important to me.

[KendallJ]

I say this, however, realizing that there are circumstances in which I know I would act in a way that is incompatible with the above. Before my mom died, I would have done literally anything to save her life.

The interesting thing to consider and the reason I think the "rationally thought out, 100% certain death" sorts of senarios are in the category of the "fantastic hypothetical" is this:

If the senario is such that one has time to think about it, then most likely the reciporcal values and choices of the person being saved come into play. And they would preclude the option of choosing to give your life, for the very same reason you would choose to give it.

If your mother had been offered the option to live but knowing the only way to effect that would cost her daughter's life, I have a hunch I know what she would have said or allowed - regardless of what you would have wanted to do.

If the woman I loved offered me her life to save mine, I would refuse it for the very same reason (my value of her) she might offer it (her value of me). It becomes sort of a virtuous, valuing stalemate then.

Edited December 19, 2007 by KendallJ

[airborne]

I think most situations where one has the opportunity are not of the rationally thought out variety, but rather the split second decision where one's own death is uncertain. In that case, then, the idea is more that the difference between life without them and life with them is so stark (regardless of the purpose you find) that it is worth the risk.

I agree, it would probably be your reaction to do everything you can to save someone you love. However, if I rationally think out the situation then logic tells me not to save anyone close to me for the reason that most people who say they would die for someone don't kill themselves after that someone dies. Basically, its possible that you will find a reason to live(like Ayn Rand did). Isn't that better than not being alive at all? Wouldn't that be in your self-interest?

FeatherFall: Self-respect is a matter of acting in your own rational self-interest, which is what I'm trying to understand in relation to these situations.

Edited December 20, 2007 by airborne

[RationalBiker]

Basically, its possible that you will find a reason to live(like Ayn Rand did). Isn't that better than not being alive at all?

I think this is what addresses the heart of your question. Whether it's better or not depends on how much pain, suffering and agony you want to endure in the hope that that possibility of another reason surfaces. Some people want no part of a life devoid of joy and value.

[FeatherFall]

Self-respect is a matter of acting in your own rational self-interest, which is what I'm trying to understand in relation to these situations.

Sorry about the lack of clarity. I tend to agree with some here that the alternative is almost never a straight up swap between a person's life and that of a loved one. My comments assumed the inaction/risk of death alternative. In this context, whether or not I act says a lot about me, who I spend my life with and my values. I would not want to have to come to the negative conclusions that inaction would bring me to; that either I waste my time with people I really don't value, or that I do not have the courage to protect them (which might lead me to think I never deserved to be around them in the first place). Either way, it could be a crushing blow to the ol' ego.

[KendallJ]

I agree, it would probably be your reaction to do everything you can to save someone you love. However, if I rationally think out the situation then logic tells me not to save anyone close to me for the reason that most people who say they would die for someone don't kill themselves after that someone dies. Basically, its possible that you will find a reason to live (like Ayn Rand did). Isn't that better than not being alive at all? Wouldn't that be in your self-interest?

RB has the basic principle articulated, but I want you to think about your logic here. Using some sort of population sample or empirical opinion poll to determine your ethics is what concerns me. Your logic falls apart at the words "most" and "possible". We're not interested in what the average joe on the street does, right? We want to know what he should do. Your two options listed above (which really only apply to an Objectivist) are then incomplete for the average joe. He might not find a reason to live and just not have the courage to kill himself. Or you must remember that they are only saying what they would do in a hypothetical situation. Maybe they really wouldn't have had the courage to do so or were mistaken about their intent. An then of course the most. If it's most, then whats different about the some who do kill themselves?

Beyond that, as I've already said, I believe you're wasting a lot of time on a fantastic hypothetical. Please note Rand's language carefully. She said "can be willing." She doesn't actually discuss actualization. I don't think there is a contradiction between this and the concern you or Charlotte expressed with the "rational calculus" because the situation that uses the rational calculus as its basis doesn't exist. So in essence you can continue to be willing, but the reality of that situation will never come about. I think that willingness is a good thing. That willingness then doesn't represent your actual decision in a case like that (which doesn't exist) nor is it a false willingness, but it is held as a concrete expression of the value you hold for someone. Also, like the martial artist or boxer who practices combinations so that should the need arise they can execute a movement instantly without hesitation, that willingness prepares you for the split second decision, where risk is involved as opposed to certain death.

Edited December 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[JMeganSnow]

However, if I rationally think out the situation then logic tells me not to save anyone close to me for the reason that most people who say they would die for someone don't kill themselves after that someone dies.

There is a huge difference between volunteering to die to actually accomplish something, and killing yourself when all hope of accomplishing something via your effort is lost. You may as well say that it's impossible to contemplate someone cutting his foot off to get out of a trap because the same person doesn't cut his foot off when the trap just falls off of its own accord.

If you do have an opportunity to save a loved one in this manner and you don't, what does that say about you? If I really loved someone that much, the thought of living on with the knowledge that I *could have done something* would be *horrifying*, far beyond the fact of the loss. And people *do* kill themselves in situations like that, just not always *quickly*, via drugs or alcohol or just not giving a damn any more.

[agrippa1]

I think the point Rand is trying to make is that the individual is responsible for the value he puts on things, including his own life. It's "okay" by Objectivist philosophy to value someone else more than your own life. The trade, of your life for theirs, is then a net gain based on your values, even though you're not around to "enjoy" it.

This makes it apparent that Rand approved of volitional suicide (I think she mentions in the Donahue interview that she would kill herself in an instant if she believed in an afterlife), which is right in line with the supremacy of the individual in personal decisions.

What is evil is making those value judgments for someone else, whether it is their life or a loaf of bread you are valuing for them. So making the judgment that no one should kill themselves for another is a mistake.

[Marc K.]

It's "okay" by Objectivist philosophy to value someone else more than your own life.

This is most emphatically NOT the Objectivist position and I am curious as to where in the Objectivist literature you could have surmised such a thing.

To a rational, moral man, his life will always be his highest value. Now you just have to discover what "his life" means.

This makes it apparent that Rand approved of volitional suicide (I think she mentions in the Donahue interview that she would kill herself in an instant if she believed in an afterlife), which is right in line with the supremacy of the individual in personal decisions.

Your supposition here might be correct, but since Ayn Rand most definitely did NOT believe in an afterlife what do you think that does to your reasoning?

[agrippa1]

This is most emphatically NOT the Objectivist position and I am curious as to where in the Objectivist literature you could have surmised such a thing.

Okay, you caught me. By "life" I meant the literal definition of "life" not the broader meaning, which includes the right to live life as you see fit, without fear of force against you or those who you value. By that broader definition, I will agree with your objection. The context of this discussion, however, was whether it's ever okay to give up (as opposed to "sacrifice") one's life in exchange for something of greater value. By Objectivist (i.e., rational) standards, I think we can agree that a life lived at someone else's whim very nearly approaches zero value.

In the context of such an existence, the laying down of your life for the sake of your loved ones' escape from the same existence could be rationally justified.

"Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him."

- Ayn Rand, "Ethics of Emergencies" VOS 45.

Edited December 21, 2007 by agrippa1

[agrippa1]

To a rational, moral man, his life will always be his highest value. Now you just have to discover what "his life" means.

Hmmm... I think I want to retract my last post...

Since "his life" obviously does not mean his state of being alive, in the biological sense, it must mean something else...

Okay, I'll take a stab: "His life" is that which has the highest value to a man.

Is that close?

[Marc K.]

"His life" is that which has the highest value to a man.

Is that close?

To a rational, moral man, his life is his highest value.

His life is the life he chooses to live and some things a man cannot live without.

[airborne]

I'm still trying to get my head around this - thanks all for your input

So the difference between would and could die for you -

Would means, I would choose to die instead of you if I was presented with the choice

Could means, It is possible that under certain circumstances I will risk my life to save yours that could lead to my death

Is that what this means?

As Mark K. pointed out Life is mans highest value. So for someone to die for someone else they would have to be their highest value?(Isn't this second-handedness?)

[Jon Pizzo]

I agree, it would probably be your reaction to do everything you can to save someone you love. However, if I rationally think out the situation then logic tells me not to save anyone close to me for the reason that most people who say they would die for someone don't kill themselves after that someone dies. Basically, its possible that you will find a reason to live(like Ayn Rand did). Isn't that better than not being alive at all? Wouldn't that be in your self-interest?

FeatherFall: Self-respect is a matter of acting in your own rational self-interest, which is what I'm trying to understand in relation to these situations.

I don't think that a man needs to "find a reason" to live. It depends on what you're talking about here. Are you talking about stepping in front of a bullet for someone, or are you talking about someone asking you to sacrifice yourself so that they can live?

If you're talking about stepping in front of a bullet for someone, here's what you need to remember: when force is used against someone, logic and reason go out the window. There can really be no 'logical' action at this point when a gun is fired. I would step in front of a bullet to save someone I cared about, not as a sacrifice, but because I would not want the situation to be on the shooters' terms at all. You have to remember that it is not my Moral Duty to step in front of the bullet, but you can't say that I am irrational for doing so.

[Miles White]

Initially the idea that saving a loved one at your own life's expensive made sense to me. Now it does not.

(VOS - pg 52)

There are many people who loose a loved one but still live. Life is not so unbearable that they commit suicide. If you decide not to save a loved one at your own life's expense the scenario could unfold in two ways.

1. You can not bear to live, so you commit suicide

2. You struggle at first but then find a reason to live

This is way better than just killing yourself to save a loved one because you think you couldn't live without them.

I remember on one of the Ayn Rand interviews on you tube(was it with Mike Wallace) that she said she would jump in front of a bullet to save her husbands life(this is after he had already died). If she coulden't bear to live without him why didn't she commit suicide? Did she suddenly find a reason to live? Doesn't that contradict her idea that she couldn't live without him so would be willing to trade her life for his survival?

You don't literally have to find a specific reason in order to save their life. The fact that their death will bring you displeasure and unhappiness (even if it's temporary) should still easily be enough motivation to save the life of a loved one. If a loved one died, you probably would want to kill yourself for a while, but not to do so would not be a contradiction because your motivation for staying alive is not dependent upon them. Your motivation to keep them alive could just as easily be the fact that you don't want to temporarily experience such pain as to loose them.

[JMeganSnow]

As Mark K. pointed out Life is mans highest value. So for someone to die for someone else they would have to be their highest value?(Isn't this second-handedness?)

There's a functional difference between the fact that life is the *ultimate* (meaning "final" or "end") value, and saying that your life is your *highest* value. Remember also that it is a certain *type* of life, a flourishing life proper to human beings, not the life of a vegetable or an animal rolling in muck. You are, in essence, insisting that *any* behavior that implies *any* amount of risk is a null program, because that would make whatever you are pursuing more important to you than your own life. You're manufacturing a Catch-22 by starting rationalistically with certain semantic premises and then poking the words around as though they were divorced from actual events in reality.

[agrippa1]

His life is the life he chooses to live

The meaning of "life" has been shifted to an irrelevant abstraction here. (unless we're willing to shift the meaning of "choose" as well)

[Marc K.]

As Mark K. pointed out Life is mans highest value. So for someone to die for someone else they would have to be their highest value?(Isn't this second-handedness?)

Be very careful here. This is where many people get lost. What I said was that for a rational, moral man, "his life is his highest value". Jennifer describes "his life" nicely here:

Remember also that it is a certain *type* of life, a flourishing life proper to human beings, not the life of a vegetable or an animal rolling in muck.

I thought I described it eloquently with:

To a rational, moral man, his life is his highest value.

His life is the life he chooses to live and some things a man cannot live without.

But eloquent doesn't always equal clear.

So you should never die "for someone else". If living without a certain value would make one's life unbearable then one might choose not to live. But the relevant perspective is a personal one. It is always how such a thing would affect you.

[aequalsa]

As Mark K. pointed out Life is mans highest value. So for someone to die for someone else they would have to be their highest value?(Isn't this second-handedness?)

It would if his life were his "highest value". Fortunately it is his standard of value.

In other words, their effect on that life as a whole, is the measure by which all other values are evaluated.

edit:spelling

Edited December 27, 2007 by aequalsa

[Marty McFly]

What about a person you KNOW you'd not live without, and you have a choice either to die and save his/her life or live and let them die (later committing scuiside because you cannot live without)

I think that letting them die is a sacrifice on your part because you are more worried about Them not being able to live without YOU.

letting yourself get killed is less of a sacrifice.

and to explain the posts above, if you had a choice to die or live in a communist country? I'd choose death anytime

Edited December 27, 2007 by Marty McFly

[Marc K.]

The meaning of "life" has been shifted to an irrelevant abstraction here. (unless we're willing to shift the meaning of "choose" as well)

Here is the full context of what I said:

To a rational, moral man, his life is his highest value.

His life is the life he chooses to live and some things a man cannot live without.

It may be abstract here since it hasn't been fully described but the life a rational, moral man chooses to live is the life proper to a human being, it is a heroic life and it is most certainly not irrelevant, it is the path to happiness.

How does one lead a proper life? By practicing rational virtues. Ayn Rand has described these also, great reading.

[agrippa1]

Here is the full context of what I said:

It may be abstract here since it hasn't been fully described but the life a rational, moral man chooses to live is the life proper to a human being, it is a heroic life and it is most certainly not irrelevant, it is the path to happiness.

How does one lead a proper life? By practicing rational virtues. Ayn Rand has described these also, great reading.

I think we are thinking the same thing. I'm saying that your life, in an imperfect (non-Objectivist) world is very likely not the life you would choose if you lived in a proper society.

To put it into a concrete, would a slave who gives his life to kill his master (and thus end slavery for his family) be acting irrationally?