The ethics of self-sacrifice

[Fredjikrang]

In my opinion, no one's life is worthless. We are all sinners who have gone astray, but Jesus has atoned for our sins. Wanting to right your wrongs is fine, but sometimes it can't be done and it's not right to kill yourself over it, because you deserve to have a life too.

First of all, I never said that I agreed with what he did, but that I could understand why he would do it, or in other words, the thought process that led him to that decision. And it may have to do with my history, but I'm sorry, I generally can understand, though very, very strongly disagree with, the decision to commit suicide, so the idea that he did it with the intention to help others seems even easier to understand.

So, I have a question for you, well, for everyone really. Why is the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save others a hero, and the man who kills himself to save someone else, such as portrayed in the movie, a sinner? (This is an honest question. I have been thinking about it since I first responded to your thoughts on the subject, and I know that there should be a difference, but I can't think of what it is. It also made me think of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan where the infamous Spock says it ""the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." But, I'm just geeky like that.) After all, didn't Christ do the same thing? It could be said, perhaps incorrectly, that he "committed suicide" to save us. After all, he "laid down his life," no one took it from him.

What do you all think?

[Marduk]

I think we need a new topic.

[Fredjikrang]

Thanks Marduk!

[Whistler]

I think a grenade is a more visible, unpreventable threat to one's life than a disability or disease. And I don't necessarily agree that the man jumping into the grenade should be a hero, although there is also a more split-second decision here than Seven Pound's premeditated thing.

It's not just self-sacrifice that bothered me about this movie. Basically, I think culturally we saint-ify people who sacrifice themselves. In the movie, viewers were constantly shown Will Smith's inner struggle to leave someone he loved to make her live longer. But I think agonizing over things like this isn't at the crux of life--mundane things like wiping off the kitchen counter and checking the mail are. By idealizing the man-in-angst, it makes our own lives look boring or unimportant, when it's really day-to-day living that gives meaning to most peoples' lives.

[TheBlackSheep]

But it's a film. Nobody wants to see a film about everyday life.

[mic0]

I don't know, TBS, films about everyday life can be very interesting. (Maybe I'm an outlier?)

[Digit]

But it's a film. Nobody wants to see a film about everyday life.

Not on the topic of sacrifice, but there's a whole channel on TV with cameras running of the House of Representatives, whether there are lots of people there talking about something or not. Most of the time when I flip by that channel, it's four or five guys sitting around, maybe with one guy walking. I sometimes wonder how many people watch that channel. It must be a few, since broadcasting on TV isn't free. There's a Senate channel of the same, too.

[Tao]

C-span, and if you miss one riveting moment, you can always catch back up.
All joking aside, I consider it one of the few channels on cable that might actually be worth spending money for.

On-topic, I've not seen the film in question, but I have pondered scenarios that may tie in: Christ's sacrifice was made fully knowing the outcome, the heroic 'last stands' in military history are heroic when the lead to the accomplishment of the battle/war/chessgame/whatever. Otherwise you tend to find them in the file labeled 'blunders'. (Of course, such filing is always subjective, get some history buffs talking about the charge of the light brigade some time. Leerooyyy Jeennnnkinss!)

I am of the opinion that somewhere within all of us (maybe just guys, no experience from any other perspective) is the belief that self-sacrifice is synonymous with romance. After all, greater love hath no man that the teenager who takes a bullet for the beautiful new girl at school that he can't work up the courage to talk to. Right? Then again, if some deranged so-and-so is gunning for your girl, dying is about the least useful thing you can do, unless somehow you take the only bullet in existence for her.

If you're love interest is dying and you can die to offer her the chance to live, I think you should seriously consider that an option, but if the motivation for such a move is "I can't live without her" such an action is, in all honesty, selfish and the opposite of heroic. Again, I don't know the film, but if by chance she reciprocates his feelings, he is effectively saying "life sucks living without you, so I'll make the choice to avoid that and let you live a long(er) life in the very situation I'd rather die than face."

There may be other factors involved which can stand the whole thing on its ear, but in the end, heroic is defined as service of another and by that must we judge. (Also makes the term Randian Hero a oxymoron, but that's a different rant for another day.)

[Yarjka]

Tolstoy's War and Peace delves into this topic pretty heavily. Prince Andrei never succeeds at being a hero precisely because he wanted to be a hero. Tolstoy shows true heroism in the day-to-day living of the everyday person. Likewise, Kutuzov in the novel is a better general than Napoleon because Napoleon tried to keep everything within his control whereas Kutuzov is willing to let matters go on their own accord.

[Fredjikrang]

I've been thinking about this a fair bit over the last week or so.

It seems like it is something that we, as humans beings, aren't really sure how to handle very well, and it is perhaps for this reason that it is so heavily explored in media. Here are some more popular media examples that I have thought about:

Harry Potter: Harry's mother dies to protect him. Also, several other characters die to help him on his way.
LoTR (movie): Boromir dies to protect the hobbits.
Hunger Games series: Katniss volunteers to take her sister's place, believing that it will lead to her death. Peeta decides to sacrifice himself for her (repeatedly). The old woman in the last book walks into the killer fog to save some of them. (There are more.)
iRobot: (Another Will Smith film, I know. ;D ) The main character is unhappy mainly because a robot saved him instead of the child. (He was willing to sacrifice himself for her.)
The Wrath of Kahn: Spock sacrifices himself. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
U571: An officer sacrifices himself to connect the some needed tubing, for the good of his crew.
The Incredibles: Even though she doesn't die, Elastigirl puts herself around her children when the plane is hit by a missile.

Also, a scripture that has been mentioned already: John 15:13 "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Although agonizing over it isn't what defines us, perhaps, I do think that it is an interesting question. When is it selfish to preserve our own lives when we could save the life of another?