Saving a loved one IS a sacrifice

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think this issue, as is true for many other moral issues, is primarily one of context. If someone you love means everything in the world to you, then it is not a sacrifice for you to want to prevent that loved one from dying -- if you can help it. If that loved one is you in another body -- figuratively speaking, of course, but still having the same outlook on life and greatly enhances your selfish desire to live life to the fullest and to want to remain alive so you can be with them; then preventing their death means everything in the world to you.

I once had the closest friend I have every had in my adult life -- we were twin brothers of the spirit -- and when he died of heart problems more than ten years ago, it felt as if my soul had been ripped out. And that was only a friend, not a romantic partner who would mean a lot more to me. When someone is that close to you and they die, one does not get over it in a day, a month, or a year. The wound stays with you for the rest of your life. Now, this doesn't mean that one cannot go on without them; one heals oneself as best one can, even though it may take a lifetime. One makes new friends and tries to have that close of a relationship, but it doesn't mean that one would give almost anything to have that person back. And if there was something one could have done to save that loved one (within the full context of what one knows at the time), and one doesn't do it, then one is implicitly saying that one's own life isn't worth having that loved one in one's life.

And I think this is the context that people drop when they claim that it is a sacrifice to save a loved one even at the price of one's own life.

A casual acquaintance, no. A best friend, maybe. A true love romantic partner, most assuredly.

It's not an issue that your life is worthless without that other person, but rather what is that loved one to you qua living conscious entity? If you are aware of how valuable that loved one is, then you had better act as if your life's happiness depends on that loved one's existence; because it does -- and that is the whole point of being in love with them, if you take such concepts seriously.

Surviving the loss of a loved one is not easy, and the full context of what you knew how to do at the time must be taken into account in any evaluation of your responsibilities to them and to yourself. Take it from someone who lost a close loved one -- you don't want to be put into a position whereby you rack yourself for years and years wondering if you could have done something to save them. If you weren't responsible, then you can recover, as I did; but it is not something you want to test after the fact, because then it is too late.

So, take the rational action when your loved one's life is at stake; for you may only have that one chance.

[airborne]

I just had a further realization and why my thinking was wrong. Especially after reading VOS on the altruistic ethics on non-reality based situations, as some of you may have intended to point out.

Look, I was thinking of a type of scenario where %100 death was imminent, some non-existent scenario. However, if I think about family/very close friends in the context of reality, I could die to save them. *could*. If some guy aims a gun at someone I love, in that moment there is still the hope that I will come out alive and my friend too, and I guess that is what makes it worth it. It is the hope of both of us being alive that drives me.