Definitions of "sacrifice"

[Doug Morris]

When people demand "sacrifice", they usually don't define it.  Last night on Jeopardy, although no one was demanding "sacrifice", they defined it as giving something up for something more important.  This is almost the opposite of Ayn Rand's definition.  Of course anyone demanding "sacrifice" will claim that what they are demanding satisfies the definition I heard on Jeopardy, not Ayn Rand's definition.  And of course, what we are dealing with in connection with demands for "sacrifice" is the difference between altruist/collectivist and rationally egoist views of importance and value.

[Eiuol]

Maybe they mean "more important" as in something "greater" than oneself? Rand's definition depends on the idea that some people view values as intrinsic. When values gains some worth by virtue of their relationship with an individual, then any value that is somehow beyond an individual will necessarily be less than what they gave up.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Eiuol

[Boydstun]

Doug,

Those two definitions of sacrifice are the second and third definitions in my American Heritage Dictionary. That is to say, both are correct as far as usage of the term is concerned. So I’d suggest that when one is using the term addressing a general audience, it would be good to have crisp way of expressing which of those one means. Taking up the meaning (the second) in Galt’s speech and supposing it is what everyone else understands by the term is a mistake for getting the specific target one is shooting at in common view.

The first definition of the term in my dictionary is: The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage; especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or person for this purpose.

Abraham prepares to kill his son as a sacrificial offering to God because he holds God even more dear than his son. It is not only sacrifice of a higher value to a lower one that is irrational. That the well-being of the society should be valued by oneself over the well-being of oneself has to be shown to be irrational, and thereby come to be seen as a wrong priority. Then too, rationality as virtue in all things needs showing today as ever, as against virtue of its suspension..

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

The first definition of the term in my dictionary is: The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage; especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or person for this purpose.

If we delve into that (and other definitions of sacrifice), a choice can only be labeled (seen as) a sacrifice if the whole picture is not seen. In this case, there is NO sacrifice, it is done for a higher reward from God perhaps in an afterlife. In other words, there is a payoff.

An actual sacrifice is choosing to do something consciously knowing that there will be NO reward (none at all). This type of choice is not psychologically possible. Choosing a lower value can be done by mistake, but similarly a mistake is never done consciously. (if it is, it was not a mistake) What is possible is to ignore (not take into consideration) the reward, but say that the choice was made for nothing, which is a mind trick.

What Rand is attacking is the idea that a sacrifice ought to happen. Altruism and duty is an ethics of doing things for no reason at all, i.e. no benefit at all.