If through my death I could save someone I loved-- I don't know.

I have to admit that self-preservation has a strong pull.  Which is why I believe giving up ones own life is such the "ultimate sacrifice."

Here's a question for you.

If you're brother needed a heart.. and you were the only match.. would you kill yourself so that he could have it?


Why do people keep on saying this?  Sacrifice is not dependent on the giving up of ones morals or going against ones moral standing.

According to Exams definition.. in fact.. you need! the situation has to include morality, and you have to act in line with that morality, for it to be a sacrifice.

Otherwise, how can one say that he is giving something up for something "greater" if he doesn't have some belief as to what is greater?

I would sacrifice every other driver on the road so my commute would be less aggravating.

praise jesus

 

edit: quite right jane, i misspoke

Sacrifice is only possible when the person acts without consideration for the glory of self.  Sacrifice is action without premeditation.  The instant self-glory becomes a possibility and is recognized as such is the instant that sacrifice disappears.

Action without thought is necessarily irrational; ergo, sacrifice is irrational.

Now, I am going to call out Lil'Rascal because I have seen too many comments like:

"i have never sacrificed anything, nor would i ever. the greatest sacrifice is sacrifice itself. it not only betrays you, but everything you value as well.  "

from him in his short time with the forum.  Lil'Rascal you can't spout bullshit and be heralded a genius for it.  The quote above is a tautology.  Zen masters use tautologies all of the time, and they are full of shit. 

"The greatest sacrifice is sacrifice itself."  I see this and wonder if you could actually believe it is a reasonable statement.  I am not attacking you personally lil'Rascal, but I will call you out for dumbass comments like that.

Are you sure about the first part of this statement? I suppose I've never thought of it this way.

If I give up my dog so that I can get a cat.  Did I sacrifice my dog for the cat?

If I give up my life so that my brother can live.  Did I sacrifice my life for my brother? 

Now.. the last element.

If I give up my dog so that I can get a cat and be heralded for giving up my dog to someone who really wanted it.  Did I sacrifice my dog for the cat + heraldness?

Furthermore..

If my brother is suffering from some ailment and needs a heart transplant.. I think about what I can do for 5 years! only to come to the conclusion that the only way he will live is if I give him my heart, will this not be a sacrifice because I premediated?

Will it not if I "knew" that I would be heralded as some saint?

I think you have to push it one step farther:

"The MOTIVE for sacrifice cannot be glory."

Not mere consideration of the glory.

But even so.. if I'm motivated by the glory to become rich and powerful, and give up lasting friendships for the purpose of becoming rich and famous.  Could it not be accurately said that I "sacrificed" lasting friendships?

That's why I feel that "sacrifice" is best defined as giving up something for something else.

Has nothing to do with motive and everything to do with value.

That you are giving up something of smaller value for something of greater value, or vise versa, doesn't matter.. only that there is an inequality of value or an inequality of substance. 

This what I've been trying to say, though a lot less eloquently.  lol.

I'll say it again, sacrifice is a waste. It's an uneven trade. (I think I might have pulled that from Rand, to give credit where it's due)

Well, a sacrifice is a loss to the person being sacrificed.  If you choose to die to save 100 people because you know you'll be treated like a hero, than is it really a sacrifice?  After all, you're gaining an eternal name and for some people that might be a gain. 

No, you'd be a bad pet owner.  Actually, I suppose you would be sacrificing the dog in some aspect.  After all, say the dog gets shipped to the shelter and destroyed, then you made a conscious decision to destroy one life so you could possess another (the cat).  Does that make sense? 

Dammit Rhad, every time I try to answer you I get all twisted up!  lol. 

 

Yeah, yeah. 

I've been thinking though.  Let's say you do send your dog to a shelter to be put down because you want a cat.  Is that really sacrificing the dog?  The dog ultimately has nothing to do with it, and has no choice, he's not making the conscious decision to be put down, you are making it for him. 

The dog has been sacrificed, I suppose, but what would that make you?  You haven't really given anything up, and since you wanted a cat more than a dog, you've gained something from the deal.

What do I have confused here? 

(q)I don't have any idea why a sacrifice must go against a person's standards.  Please clarify or give an example.(q)

 

a sacrifice necesarily goes against your standered of values. it wouldnt be a sacrifice to die so someone you valued could live, but it would be if you died for a person you donot value more than yourself.

 

trading 1 value (a value is determind by your standerds)  for an equal- higher value is not a sacrifice

 

trading 1 value for a lower value- nonevalue is a sacrifice. it goes against your values and your standerds.

 

hope i cleared that up.

Well, my first thought was actually of the object that was to be sacrificed (the dog).  See, the dog technically is sacrificed, since it loses its life in the exchange.  See, instead of thinking about you sacrificing, I thought about the dog being sacrificed.  It still holds in that the dog is given the short end of the stick by being put down (sacrificed). 

Huh.  I changed my focus from you to the dog, I think and it screwed me up.  You would be the sacrificer and the dog would be the sacrificed. 

I suppose you did 'sacrifice' something but the dog (who was the sacrificed) still got the negative deal... 

But this scenario is completely different than the whole 'would you die so someone else could live' scenario. 

 You're making a conscious choice to sacrifice the dog for your gain (the cat).  Besides being a total jerk, what does that make you?  There is a difference between being the sacrificer vs. the sacrificed, no?  I mean, they can be the same thing but in this scenario, they wouldn't. 

You know what, my head hurts too.  I can't think right now. 

Have I just pooped out my last brain cell here?  Does this make any sense at all or am I completely missing the point?

Wow, this thread exploded in like 4 hours... Christ, I can't keep up.

Anyways, I am going to once again to try and define sacrifice as neatly as possible:

Sacrifice is the act of giving up something you posess, either physicaly or (metaphoricaly? I don't know what to call it), for the well being of somebody or something.

 I wouldn't use the word praiseworthy here - it is too vague.  If you were to look from the view of someone who could see the reasons for the sacrifice and realize the consequences, then yes it would fit.  But even the most noble-minded sacrifice can be condemned by the average man because he does not see the consequences.  Let me give you an example.  Let's say I'm living in 1889 in Austria(thank you, Wikipedia) and I have the ability to see the future.  I see an infant and realize that he will grow up to be the greatest mass murderer of all time(Hitler).  The only way I can stop this is to kill the infant.  If I do so, it may not seem so moraly reprehensible to us - we, after all, know the results if I don't.  However, if I do, I am seen as a baby killer by those in Austria and am probably hung or something like that.    

 

Well, I'm not going to get into predestination, so I'll just say that I agree with the rest of your post.

Looking back at this thread though, I realize that we never really got anywhere with the topic, as we got confused on definitions, and got bogged down on minute details.  Meh.  I'll get back to this, someday.