I don't believe in sacrifice.  To me, sacrificing is destroying something great so that something that is not great can continue, if that makes sense.  Meaning, I'm not going to jump into a lake to rescue a stranger if I cannot swim and risk drowning myself.  That person's life does not mean more to me than my own.  However, if that person drowning were someone I cared about, I'd probably jump right in regardless of the risk to myself.

I don't think there is anything noble about sacrifice.  It's just a waste.

You underestimate the importance of symbols.

In the event that that story is true, sure, G_d could simply grant everyone immunity. But that would be neither stylish or elegant, and rather boring.

Anyways, with His habit of never speaking directly to people, you'd just have some guy saying "Yeah... It's all cool now. Heaven for everyone." Not only would no one believe him (I overestimate the average person's resistence to believing random statements), but anyone who did believe it probably wouldn't care. Random proclamations aren't that moving.

However, throw in some multimedia action/drama with plenty of symbols and references, and you've got something far more believable and stylish.

It's like reading a short plot synopsis, or watching the movie. Assuming the movie isn't terrible, watching it really gets the point across better than the summary. 

Agreed.  Who wouldn't trade a temporary life for an "eternal" one?  I'd become a celibate monk, radical imam, pray from dawn to dusk, allow myself to be tortured, murdered, etc.  None of that would be much of a sacrifice if I were given "eternal" life and happiness.  Who wouldn't make that trade ?

And if I were omnipotent as the son of god would clearly have to be, how does anyone know he even felt any pain during the crucifixion at all ?  If you had the power to circumvent the pain of torture and the fear of death, which he (supposedly) did, wouldn't you ?  No one would ever know, right ?

Besides being clearly derivative and repetitve of other Bronze Age myths, I don't see how the jesus story conveys any real sacrifice to a thinking person anyway.

Isn't it way past time that humans left behind the childish, primitive concepts of animal and human sacrifice ? 

All the worlds a stage...

 

You don't think it tortures Jesus to see the crimes that are commited in his name? 

Wow.. this thread really went off on an tangent. Was the original question what do you consider to be a sacrifice? Not whether or not you agree that the character's in the bible sacrificied or not..

In answer to the original question.. I do believe that there is no great sacrifice than when one person lay down his life for another.

I will contend with an earlier point that "sacrifice" is just a waste. Perhaps... with the definition that was stated for sacrifice in that post, then, by definition, it will always be a waste.

But.. I'm not sure sacrifice is so narrowly limited.

I will "sacrifice" my car so that my brother can go to school. Or.. I will "sacrifice" some Taco Bell so I can buy a birthday present for a friend.

These.. I believe.. are accurate uses of the words.

Furthermore, in terms of my life-- if I felt I was finished with whatever goal or work I set out to do at the beginning of my life.. I would hope that I would be willing to "sacrifice" my life for some kid, whether or not I knew them, so that he may give more than I ever could with the remainder of my life.

*And no, this hypothetical does not suggest that my life would mean nothing to me at that time.  

Maybe a good working definition of sacrifice is in order. How about: an action taken for the greater good at some personal cost. The degree of sacrifice would be based on the personal cost.

I don't think this would be correct either.  While the first definition made all sacrifices "wasteful"-- this makes all sacrifices "praiseworthy."  "Praiseworthy" by a subjective standard perhaps.. but still.. might mess with the thread's direction.

How bout we go with definition 8 from the good old dictionary.com

Sacrifice:

8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.

Mind this: What would you sacrifice? your index finger, or your whole hand? With either of these actions, you achieve the same effec. What's your choice?

Keep in mind that I did not state that "to give up on's life is the ultimate sacrifice" but "to give up one's life for someone else's is the ultimate sacrifice."

A small distinction.. but important I believe.

It's possible that you might be able to "prove" my statement wrong.. but I don't see how without infusing some sort of subjective standard of "ultimate" or relative values between "pain" vs "non-life."

For instance, "The ultimate sacrifice would be to suffer for X years so that another may live." 

My index finger! Bing. Next question please. 

 Why wouldn't it be a sacrifice? I thiink this is, again, one of those narrow applications of the word.. just because you are gaining something that means more to you than what you are giving up... does not mean you did not give up something for something else. Ergo, sacrifice.

A non sacrifice would be to give a piece of candy for another piece of candy which is the same in every way, all things being equal.

P.S. I love candy.  I love lamp. 

I think we both could be correct on this.  However, if a person gave something up in order to get something of lesser value I don’t think that would be a sacrifice.  Well, I suppose you could argue it could be, but that would be incredibly stupid and irrational.  I mean, in the long run, isn’t his hand going to be more important than a piece of candy that has no function?  Huh.  Son of a bitch, have I just ran myself in a circle? 

Ack!  what happened?!  I went to reply to your post and you changed it on me!  LOL.

All I remember is Ms. Objective standard. 

 

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.  

So since I have gotten a decent ammount of responses, I believe I can continue in this discussion. 

Let me first clarify that when I talk of sacrifice, I mean giving up something for the greater good - this will become clear in the next part of my post.

 

 So I asked what was the greatest possible sacrifice a man could make, and I got a wide variety of responses.  However, I am going to address the two most frequent responses, not just here, but in the thinking of the average man.  The first response was that sacrifice was not noble, that sacrifice was pointless.  To quip:

To the people who say this... there is not much I can say.  All I can say is that I strongly disagree with yall(I'm from Kentucky), and that you need to seriously reevaluate your view on life.  Do you not care for your average man?  Or is it fear of death that holds you back?  (Wow, that'll ruffle some feathers)

Now, the second response is that the ultimate sacrifice is the sacrifice of oneself for another.  While I do believe self-sacrifice is great, it is not the greatest.  Too prove this, however, I must venture slightly out of the logical world - this is because the emotional response of people is hard to put logically, so if my proof looks somewhat odd and looks like it was written by a theist, forgive me.

What I'm going to do is ask you a series of questions, all I ask you to do is think through them carefully, then answer them honestly.   

You are placed into a hypothetical situation in which 100 people's lives are in mortal peril.  The only way for you to save them is to give something up - don't worry about the details.

So:

Would you give up your car?

Would you give up an item you are emotionally attatched to, like, say, your dead father's watchz?

Would you give up all your possesions and money?

Would you give up your life?

Now, here is where things get more difficult.

 

Would you betray someone you love?

Would you kill someone you love?

Would you be willing to let those who you love hate your guts, kill the innocent, and give up your morals?

 

You see, the greatest sacrifice isn't of one's own life.  When you sacrifice yourself, not only do you know that you will be praised for your actions, but there is peace afterwards, either through nonexistance or some form of afterlife.  The greatest sacrifice is of your heart, not your body.

 

i thought i was the only one on here who had even heard of her.

 as to the "that obvious" thing, you can usually pick out people who agree with rand (on atleast the fundimentals) at first glance.  

Ditto this! 

Winston Churchill, the entire city of Coventry was sacrificed in order to keep the fact that Bletchley Park had cracked the Enigma code secret,

General Beck, the Black Orchestra

http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/samplep-06

like this Xamination ?

 

Let me try to explain that one again - we are dealing with emotions, remember, and its hard to put this stuff logically.

Rhad, if you were forced to kill someone you loved, not out of hate or spite, but for the greater good, would your guilt allow you to love the same way again?

 Remember, what I am arguing is not that these actions are moral or immoral, right or wrong.  All I am saying is that there are sacrifices greater than death, because with death comes peace.  With what I am trying to describe, there is only emotional torment.

Why would I need to reevaluate my view on life?  Just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't mean it's wrong. 

Simply put, yes, I do care for the average man.  I just care more for myself and those that are close to me than I do for some stranger I've never met. I imagine most people would.  I'm not going to die, or hurt myself so that someone else can live.  Who says that person's life is greater than mine?  Likewise, I expect no one to sacrifice anything for my benefit alone.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  Why do you think its wrong?

I enjoy living comfortably and the idea of that ending can be disconcerting, but I don't believe that I fear death. 

But sometimes you must.  If the only way to save 100 people were to kill 10, then logic and morality would dictate that since some people are going to die, it is best that the 10 are sacrificed, since 10<100.  It is nice to say that you would never condemn anyone to their death, but sometimes you must.

I think this is a bit different then what he was presenting.. surely a military sacrifice is not the same sacrifice he was meaning when he presented the question whether one would be willing to kill X to save Y.. but perhaps I'm wrong.

As a counterpoint-- perhaps one might consider it a great "sacrifice" to let X, who you love, die in order that 100 people, who you've not known before, might live.

Hmm.. but even so.. would this be a "greater sacrifice" than giving up your own life? Hmm.. not so sure.

thats not a sacrifice. a sacrifice is going against your morals. dieing in the stead of a loved one isnt a sacrifice, it is the ultamit expression of your values.

Phrasing it this way would not be correct.  You do not "sacrifice" a person you love when you kill them.  You might, however, "sacrifice the ability to have them with you."

In other words.. it's not the action which is the sacrifice.. but the results of that action.  This is something, I think, you correctly touch upon in the next part...


Yes.. emotional torment, perhaps.  The importance of the hypothetical doesn't reside in the action but in the torment that comes about after the fact because of the absence of the one you love and knowledge that you were the reason for it.  In other you, you have "sacrificed your peace of mind (for a moment, perhaps forever, with regards to love)."

But to take it to a more extreme, let's just say "peace of mind" generally-- and more so, to the extent that you are "insane" if you don't have "piece of mind."  Whether or not "peace of mind" is a "more ultimate sacrifice" than one's life-- is debatable, I think.

Here are a question that might flush out the idea:

If you had to give up one of two things for a piece of candy, which would you rather give up, your life or your piece of mind?

Now.. how would this ever come about? It wouldn't.  You never know that giving up some sort "piece of mind" in the present will mean that you will never have piece of mind again.  Which is I believe the problem with your hypothetical as well..

Fine.. I kill someone I love and therefore "sacrifice my ability to love"-- but is this sacrifice for a moment? forever? who knows.

At any point and time after-the-fact I will have the oppotunity to crawl out of the despair.

The concept of giving up ones life is consider to great a sacrifice because this very reason, that it is seemingly final and not temporary.

In anycase.. I keep pushing that "killing someone" is not a sacrifice.  Perhaps "killing a cow" might be considered a sacrifice.. because you are "sacrificing property".. but "someone you love" or "innocents" are not property to be sacrificed-- I think it's an incorrect application of the word or suggestion.


Logic and morality do nothing of the sort.  Economics perhaps says that you should kill 10 to save 100.. but morality surely doesn't.

It's the classic trolly v. doctor case.

If I can save 10 people with the organs of one, do I kill the one to give the organs to the others?
If I can save 10 people by letting my trolly roll over one, do I let my trolly run over the one or the ten?

Different moral implications.  You're suggest that the first one would be "morally dictated"-- hm.. I don't believe so.