I agree Eliuol, the only thing that I could lose which would make me want to no longer live is my capacity to think. As long as you have the ability to think rationally, there is no reason I, nor anyone else, should no longer care if they live or die. And that is truly the only case anyone could rationally do something knowing you will definitely die.
For me, there are no values I have that I’d rather be dead than do without… I would argue that the only value one can have that they truly would rather be dead than alive is your rational mind.
Are you saying it would be irrational for you (or someone) to join the army? A soldier would rather die, if necessary, than live under the conquest/victory of a foreign evil state (even if there is a chance that one day the conquest will end). Do you find such a choice irrational?
Are you saying it would be irrational for you (or someone) to join the army? A soldier would rather die, if necessary, than live under the conquest/victory of a foreign evil state (even if there is a chance that one day the conquest will end). Do you find such a choice irrational?
Of course it wouldn’t be irrational since you would be acting to hopefully secure your freedom. There is a risk, but if I’m able and skilled enough, I won’t die at all. There are few situations where you know the results of your actions that will guarantee you dying. It is those situations I’m referring to. I wouldn’t say that I would rather be dead than live in under an evil state. I would do what I could to stop the evil in order to be free. If you’d rather be dead then live in an evil state, it would make sense just to kill yourself. But obviously fighting is a better option, and if you succeed, life will be better.
There is a risk, but if I’m able and skilled enough, I won’t die at all.
-
So those soldiers who do “die at all,” it is (likely) just because they are not “able and skilled enough”?
-
Also, I’m assuming you find irrational any tactical suicide mission in war: say you know that if you crash your plane into that nuclear weapon building, you will immediately win the war, and if you don’t you are likely to lose. Would a suicide mission like that be irrational since you know you are dying?
- So those soldiers who do “die at all,” it is (likely) just because they are not “able and skilled enough”?
Technically, yes. So you train to be better. If you aren’t a good soldier, then being a soldier probably is not the best way to fight for freedom.
- Also, I’m assuming you find irrational any tactical suicide mission in war: say you know that if you crash your plane into that nuclear weapon building, you will immediately win the war, and if you don’t you are likely to lose. Would a suicide mission like that be irrational since you know you are dying?
Yes, if it is literally a suicide mission. As in, it involves dying in order to accomplish (like kamikazes). I won’t get *any* benefit out of dying on purpose in such a situation.
Technically, yes. So you train to be better. If you aren’t a good soldier, then being a soldier probably is not the best way to fight for freedom.
You seriously believe that soldiers who die in war mainly do so because they are not well-trained?
Yes, if it is literally a suicide mission. As in, it involves dying in order to accomplish (like kamikazes). I won’t get *any* benefit out of dying on purpose in such a situation.
You seriously believe anyone who would decide to destroy a tyrannical or evil force is irrational if this consciously involves him dying? A man who would drive into Hitler’s house with bombs just before Hitler kills 6 million Jews would be considered irrational under your ethical system?
Well, well. No further questions then.
Technically, yes. So you train to be better. If you aren’t a good soldier, then being a soldier probably is not the best way to fight for freedom.
Training is one thing.
Equipment is another. Not so good vs better. Or failure of the weapon…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uB_YWScuUc
How about volume of the opposition?
Or just accidents?
The best trained soldier with a stick against 400 poorly trained soldiers with blowguns, well, my money is on the 400.
Following the training theory, only low ranking, low skill soldiers would die, but there are battlefield deaths of NCO’s and officers. It’s a little more complicated in reality.
The key issue here is that soldiers do not volunteer with the intention of dying. There is a risk of dying, but as I and others have addressed before, a risk of dying can very well be rational.
The main issue is rationality in the face of certain death. And I’ll answer your question blackdiamond, even though it was addressed to Eiuol; yes, that soldier is irrational. His action can be nothing but altruistic. He is sacrificing his life to help others. He can get no benefit from his action (since he no longer will exist). And so he is being irrational in the Objectivist sense.
You seriously believe that soldiers who die in war mainly do so because they are not well-trained?
I would think it’s a major factor, yes, provided side one isn’t outequipped. If one side is better equipped, like the Aztecs vs the Spanish, it would be suicide to fight as a soldier if you were a Aztec. Basically no question that you’d die. In that case, if you wanted to fight for your freedom, becoming a writer is one way to do so without guaranteeing death.
You seriously believe anyone who would decide to destroy a tyrannical or evil force is irrational if this consciously involves him dying? A man who would drive into Hitler’s house with bombs just before Hitler kills 6 million Jews would be considered irrational under your ethical system?
I’m not sure how I can interpret that as anything but altruistic. It would be more productive to talk about if you agree with me about your rational mind being the only value where you’d rather be dead than do without.
I would think it’s a major factor, yes, provided side one isn’t outequipped. If one side is better equipped, like the Aztecs vs the Spanish, it would be suicide to fight as a soldier if you were a Aztec. Basically no question that you’d die. In that case, if you wanted to fight for your freedom, becoming a writer is one way to do so without guaranteeing death.
The conquistadors were illiterate, the Aztecs were illiterate, and the Spanish never gave a damn what the natives had to say about anything. Spain was an empire and the Mexicans were slaves until the last spaniard was driven from the country by force.
You are wrong.
To look at the ‘battlefield-value-of life’ scenario from a slightly different angle, I have not a single doubt who I’d rather be sending/leading into battle as a General,- between an army of soldiers filled with some vaguely altruistic and patriotic duty to their country; or soldiers all operating from the premise of rational self regard, and moral conviction.
These are the ones who wouldn’t throw their lives away, but only faced with no choice would sell those lives very dearly. As Patton said, the object of war is to make the other guy die for his country.
In other words, give me a battalion of Objectivists any day. 
As has been said here, there are certain situations that would be intolerable for any freedom-loving individual. Life under the most extreme restrictions, in mindless existence, with no realistic hope, would then be of reduced, or zero value. But, the examples raised here have to do with physical force from an outside agency, and there have been hundreds of examples of humans surviving, and eventually triumphing, over the harshest of conditions - so one never knows how much one individual can take.
No, the ‘enemy without’ at least can be combated.
Far worse for me is seeing someone close dying slowly of Alzheimers’ disease,( or any kind of dementia ): it is literally the long drawn-out death of the brain, followed by the body. The Self gradually vanishes in fits and starts, leaving just a husk behind. For anyone whose mind is everything - i.e., all O’ists - the value of life in this situation loses all meaning.
The conquistadors were illiterate, the Aztecs were illiterate, and the Spanish never gave a damn what the natives had to say about anything. Spain was an empire and the Mexicans were slaves until the last spaniard was driven from the country by force.
You are wrong.
…wrong about what? All I was saying is that becoming a soldier in *that* case, if you were an Aztec, would be irrational to physically fight the militarily superior Spanish conquistadors.
…wrong about what?
The becoming a writer part. Futility is irrational. Aztecs were at a disadvantage against Cortes and his band of merry gentlemen but they did inflict casualties. Bad odds are better than no odds.
Futility is irrational. Aztecs were at a disadvantage against Cortes and his band of merry gentlemen but they did inflict casualties. Bad odds are better than no odds.
No, there are certainly situations in which there are no odds. For example, if the US, for whatever reason, wanted to conquer the island of Malta, and we put the full force of our military behind it (and, for the sake of argument, we’ll bar other nations for interfering), then that island nation of four hundred thousand people would have one soldier for each citizen. Sorry, fighting, in such a situation, is futile. If we were to get rid of indian reservations and “conquer” them, then the native americans would have no odds against the US military. I’ll grant that the Aztecs might have had slim odds rather than no odds (but I’m not sure about that).
There are such things as futile situations, and recognizing which situations are merely slim, and ones where the odds are so long as be for all intents and purposes zero, are the ones who end up fighting another day.
And none of that changes the fact that there are situations where your death is assured given a certain course of action; in those situations, the only thing you can do is choose to survive or die, and as long as you can still think, death isn’t a rational choice.
No, there are certainly situations in which there are no odds.
Sure, I did not state there were not. And since you granted the case of the Aztecs there is no disagreement here. I’m not even saying you are wrong about not willing to die fighting in hopeless cause. I am saying that conclusion is not universal or universalizable, or in other words it is contextual. When I was young and invincible and without history or commitments I thought the same as you. I wasn’t wrong then, I am not wrong now and there is not a contradiction because I am a different person now.
The big 1000 I notice, Grames; congrats.