If you don't love someone why die for them?

[Donnadogsoth]

There's a line somewhere that the greatest of all loves is that which will die for another person. Perhaps this has applied to beloved pets as well. However, what if one has no love for the person menaced with death? Why should one spend all of one's remaining life saving another person, when there is no love for that person in the rescuer's heart?

[Dodom]

Mostly situations where one would have to sacrifice themselves to save someone else are too urgent for one to weight all the pros and cons and one ends up doing what feels like the right thing.
One may not even be aware of how dangerous their rescue attempt is, and don't know they'll likely die. Like someone jumping in a freezing lake to save a drowning child does so expecting to make it back to the shore, they'd obviously fail saving the child if they died halfway.

And then, even if there was time to think things through, many people would still go on, because that's the kind of person they want to see themselves as, because they'd feel too guilty if they didn't.

[factotum]

I imagine that people who rush in to save someone else's life are not carefully thinking through the logical consequences of their actions, they're acting on instinct--they see someone in trouble and go in to save them. They're not expecting to die themselves, and (presuming there's an afterlife) probably feel a bit silly about the whole affair when they go to meet their Maker.

For people whose job it is to save lives on a daily basis (say, firemen) then they must be motivated by a general desire to help other people, or they wouldn't be risking their lives doing that job. Again, though, I suspect they're not really thinking about the risk to themselves in the heat of the moment, they're thinking about saving somebody else's life.

[NontheistCleric]

Love does not really have a meaning of its own. What some call love is just a combination of loyalty, liking and occasionally familial obligation or sexual desire. All four can also exist independently of one another and in my opinion, enough loyalty, debt or obligation (which may stem from any source) can lead someone to die for someone else.

Of course, the personality of the person in question potentially doing the dying also has a large effect on how far any particular feeling has a bearing on their decision to die for another, as do the circumstances surrounding the people involved.

[danzibr]

I imagine there actually is some sort of love there.

[inexorabletruth]

It's really hard to discuss this without getting into matters of living religions, but I'll try.

There are many kinds of love. According to the ancient Greeks, there were specifically 8. The version of love that can cause self-sacrifice is Agape, or selfless love, and can be affected by notions of community or belonging. This kind of love doesn't have to be as intensely felt as Eros, Ludos, or Mania, so it isn't always obvious that love is the motivating force. But one can feel a general kind of Agape for a group, or even nation, of people and lay down their lives to protect those people.

This said, love is not the only motivating force for self-sacrifice. We can do it for compassion, empathy, honor, hope, faith, or pride. We can even do it for vanity, avarice, spite, fear, psychosis, or self-loathing.

[PopeLinus1]

Well, I don’t love anybody, but I do love the idea of having a blood debt with someone... hmm this could work out nicely.

[Florian]

There's a line somewhere that the greatest of all loves is that which will die for another person. Perhaps this has applied to beloved pets as well. However, what if one has no love for the person menaced with death? Why should one spend all of one's remaining life saving another person, when there is no love for that person in the rescuer's heart?

You can also feel selfless love for your fellow human beings. Besides that, it might just be the right thing to do - you see someone in danger, you try to act and save them - and yes, we also want others to think and react that way when we are the ones in danger.

[Crow]

Well for some people it is just a job, and they can't take care of their family without it. I don't put my life at risk for people because I love them; but because I love my family.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Don't sacrifice yourself for other people guys, that person will have to deal with the ghost of your death hunting them forever. Not nice.

Just let people die when they have to die, there is nothing we can do.

[Tvtyrant]

There's a line somewhere that the greatest of all loves is that which will die for another person. Perhaps this has applied to beloved pets as well. However, what if one has no love for the person menaced with death? Why should one spend all of one's remaining life saving another person, when there is no love for that person in the rescuer's heart?

The concept of altruism is based on an evolutionary strategy known as over commitment. Essentially civilization is a giant alliance, which increases the chance of yourself and your progeny to thrive. If everyone adheres to the alliance it maximizes group survival, but betraying the alliance can increase an individuals personal success chances.

So then comes "altruism," which is the strategy of allowing your own survival/success to take a hit in order to guarantee the alliance is strong. Dying for a random stranger increases group solidarity and security, which means your offspring are safer.

[Keltest]

I imagine that people who rush in to save someone else's life are not carefully thinking through the logical consequences of their actions, they're acting on instinct--they see someone in trouble and go in to save them. They're not expecting to die themselves, and (presuming there's an afterlife) probably feel a bit silly about the whole affair when they go to meet their Maker.

For people whose job it is to save lives on a daily basis (say, firemen) then they must be motivated by a general desire to help other people, or they wouldn't be risking their lives doing that job. Again, though, I suspect they're not really thinking about the risk to themselves in the heat of the moment, they're thinking about saving somebody else's life.

I think factotum has it nailed here. Somebody who, say, pushes a kid out from in front of a car isn't necessarily thinking "I'm trading my life for theirs", theyre thinking "holy crap, that kid needs to be not there!" with no specific understanding or intention of getting hit themselves.

[Razade]

Humans are a social animal with pack mentality. Sacrificing ourselves for the pack is just hardwired in us. Nothing to do with love, nothing to do with virtue. We call them the latter and ascribe the former but it's just humans being humans and it's wonderful.

[Jormengand]

Because you value their life more than yours for whatever ethical reason? I know that I don't value my life very highly because it's not a good or enjoyable life, so it makes sense for anyone with any halfway reasonable sense of morality who's put in my position to give up their life for someone else's given the chance. It's understandable that they wouldn't, because people aren't perfectly moral and can't be expected to be, but there's nothing overtly weird about choosing to do so either.


Humans are a social animal with pack mentality. Sacrificing ourselves for the pack is just hardwired in us. Nothing to do with love, nothing to do with virtue. We call them the latter and ascribe the former but it's just humans being humans and it's wonderful.

Everything psychological or socialogical is just to do with evolutionary bias if you're reductionist enough, but I don't think that "Virtue is explicable" is tantamount to "Virtue doesn't really exist".

[Razade]

Everything psychological or socialogical is just to do with evolutionary bias if you're reductionist enough, but I don't think that "Virtue is explicable" is tantamount to "Virtue doesn't really exist".

I didn't say it doesn't exist. The literal opposite of that. Just because it has another explanation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Virtue exists, just like love or anger. Even if they're just brain states and chemical changes. They're labels. Like all words.

[danzibr]

I think factotum has it nailed here. Somebody who, say, pushes a kid out from in front of a car isn't necessarily thinking "I'm trading my life for theirs", theyre thinking "holy crap, that kid needs to be not there!" with no specific understanding or intention of getting hit themselves.
Man, I dunno. I'm a teacher, and I at times think to myself I'd give my life for any one of these kids. Not my students, mind you. I teach high school, and I see elementary kids walking in the halls at times.

Maybe it's 'cause I'm a parent of young children.

[Knaight]

At a simple, even reductionist level, a lot of the time it's just a matter of it being the right thing to do, and you do it because it's the right thing to do. This is particularly true of the cases where you're taking a significant risk of death to prevent basically guaranteed death in someone else. People don't always live by their morals, but emergency situations can often bring them out in people.

[Razade]

Don't sacrifice yourself for other people guys, that person will have to deal with the ghost of your death hunting them forever. Not nice.

Just let people die when they have to die, there is nothing we can do.

How do you know that it's their time to die there and then? Maybe, presuming you're not just...saying this to get a rise out of people...,you were supposed to save them? Maybe, just maybe, it's YOUR time to die. Because you...probably don't know when that is either.

Again though. This is presuming you're not being incendiary for the lolz and are honestly presenting the "hey, it's way better for that person to die than have to deal with the knowledge someone gave their life for them" front. The former is...well...par for the course really. The latter...I suppose that's par for the course too. Understand the difficulty here of me trying to parse the situation.

[S@tanicoaldo]

How do you know that it's their time to die there and then? Maybe, presuming you're not just...saying this to get a rise out of people...,you were supposed to save them? Maybe, just maybe, it's YOUR time to die. Because you...probably don't know when that is either.

Again though. This is presuming you're not being incendiary for the lolz and are honestly presenting the "hey, it's way better for that person to die than have to deal with the knowledge someone gave their life for them" front. The former is...well...par for the course really. The latter...I suppose that's par for the course too. Understand the difficulty here of me trying to parse the situation.

Well, if they are going to get shoot in the head and the only way to stop that is for me to get shoot in the head isntead, well it's their time to die.

In other for X not to be crushed to death by a wall Y has to push the person and be crushed instead.

One death is caused by circumstances, the other is caused by action.

Death by circumstance is always better than death by action.

[Scarlet Knight]

Don't sacrifice yourself for other people guys, that person will have to deal with the ghost of your death hunting them forever. Not nice.

Just let people die when they have to die, there is nothing we can do.

The operative phrase is have to. They have to if there's nothing we can do. But if there's something we can do (ie push them off the tracks, pull them from the burning room) then the ghost of the death will haunt you forever. Since none of us can see the future, we never know if we could have saved someone if we didn't at least try.

[S@tanicoaldo]

The operative phrase is have to. They have to if there's nothing we can do. But if there's something we can do (ie push them off the tracks, pull them from the burning room) then the ghost of the death will haunt you forever. Since none of us can see the future, we never know if we could have saved someone if we didn't at least try.

I'm confused, have you read the title? "If you don't love someone why die for them?" We are talking about getting killed in the process of saving someone, of couse if you can save someone without the risk of getting yourself killed you should do it, otherwise just don't.

[factotum]

of couse if you can save someone without the risk of getting yourself killed you should do it, otherwise just don't.

And in the time it takes you to make that risk assessment they probably die anyway...

[S@tanicoaldo]

And in the time it takes you to make that risk assessment they probably die anyway...

Better than the two ending up dead anyway.

I have seen it countless times in floods someone tries to be the hero and save the other person, dies and is unable to save them. That's very common, tragic and pointless.

[Donnadogsoth]

Better than the two ending up dead anyway.

I have seen it countless times in floods someone tries to be the hero and save the other person, dies and is unable to save them. That's very common, tragic and pointless.

Have you made a study of the ratio between successful civilian rescue attempts during a flood and unsuccessful? There might be a Darwinian calculus that justifies heroic behaviour even if many would-be heroes die.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Have you made a study of the ratio between successful civilian rescue attempts during a flood and unsuccessful? There might be a Darwinian calculus that justifies heroic behaviour even if many would-be heroes die.

There has been a lot of floods around here last year and around 48 cases of stuff like this, so yeah I don't have solid data around it but my empiric experience shows that it happens very often.

[2D8HP]

Better than the two ending up dead anyway.

I have seen it countless times in floods someone tries to be the hero and save the other person, dies and is unable to save them. That's very common, tragic and pointless.


S@tanicoaldo, has some statistics to back her up:

Don’t Be a Dead Hero: In some disasters, more rescuers die than original victims (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/rescuers_turning_into_victims_lessons_from_first_r esponders_on_saving_people.html)

[Scarlet Knight]

I'm confused, have you read the title? "If you don't love someone why die for them?" We are talking about getting killed in the process of saving someone, of couse if you can save someone without the risk of getting yourself killed you should do it, otherwise just don't.

Hmm, I guess I need to clarify. Very few people volunteer to die for another person. They will not attempt a rescue "if there's nothing we can do".

Most people who die trying a dangerous rescue intend to live. They believe there is something they can do; and that's successfully rescue the emperiled stranger. They may simply underestimate the odds of failure.

[Donnadogsoth]

S@tanicoaldo, has some statistics to back her up:

Don’t Be a Dead Hero: In some disasters, more rescuers die than original victims (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/rescuers_turning_into_victims_lessons_from_first_r esponders_on_saving_people.html)

I guess love is reckless, then.

[Xyril]

Is an acceptable answer "because it wasn't actually your decision to die for them?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWO28IjJPfY

[Frozen_Feet]

Are you asking "why people do this thing?" or "why should people do this thing?"

Let me give you one of the more banal answers to the first question: money. That is, there is a compensation for the risk you take to help others, and the risk is low enough to make it worth a shot (or, a person might just suck at assessing the risk). However, sometimes the risks get realizes, and instead of getting a fat wad of dough, you end up dying for a person you never cared about deeply.

[Crow]

Are you asking "why people do this thing?" or "why should people do this thing?"

Let me give you one of the more banal answers to the first question: money. That is, there is a compensation for the risk you take to help others, and the risk is low enough to make it worth a shot (or, a person might just suck at assessing the risk). However, sometimes the risks get realizes, and instead of getting a fat wad of dough, you end up dying for a person you never cared about deeply.

Which is basically what I said.

Most of the people saving lives all over the country on a daily basis do it for this reason when it comes down to it.

[2D8HP]

..Most of the people saving lives all over the country on a daily basis do it for this reason when it comes down to it....


As do most who risk their lives without saving anyone.

I went to an Apprenticeshio with a guy who can no longer walk because of his job, and I worked a job with another who lost both his arms, and I've I've known nine men who died in traffic, I suspect the majority of accidental deaths in the U.S.A. are people driving to and from their jobs.

[ve4grm]

My dad is a (now retired) fire fighter.

While money certainly played into it, I think I can give as bit more insight than that, when it comes to those who do this professionally.

Fire fighters rush into burning buildings because they have a higher chance of survival than those inside. They have the heavy coats, breathing apparatus, and other protective gear that means that with them in the building, the original victim has such a significantly increased chance of survival that it justifies the extra risk statistically.

Essentially, for every firefighter that dies on the job, hundreds of civilian lives are saved.

The same math works for police, military, etc.

But the kicker of it all is that most of these professionals would rush in to save others anyways. Even without the pay and safety gear (albeit less willingly than with the gear). I know my dad would. And I think that comes down to the "community" answer from someone else. Succeeding benefits the community as a whole, and may be worth the risk.

It's definitely not a mindset everyone has. Or needs. But it's useful to have around, when used with care.

[paddyfool]

As do most who risk their lives without saving anyone.

I went to an Apprenticeshio with a guy who can no longer walk because of his job, and I worked a job with another who lost both his arms, and I've I've known nine men who died in traffic, I suspect the majority of accidental deaths in the U.S.A. are people driving to and from their jobs.

Road traffic deaths (including all categories of road users - drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc) are certainly one of the biggest causes of accidental deaths in the USA, alongside falls and accidental poisoning. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

Also, they may be on the rise after years of falling, with 2016 having the worst rate of them since 2007 (40,000 people). http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/

How much of that is "guys driving to work" is anybody's guess, but standard advice applies - don't drink and drive, don"t text amd drive, don't drive while overtired, buckle up etc.

[factotum]

How much of that is "guys driving to work" is anybody's guess

Logic states that "guys driving to work" being the time when most traffic is on the roads (assuming regular working day, of course), it will also be the time when most accidents happen.

[Grek]

If you do not wish to live, it becomes easy to die for another.

[Frozen_Feet]

Oh yeah, another thing which can make people do this (though questionable if it's the reason you should do this):

Anger and hatred.

Basically, you see someone kicking another person when they're down, and you just want to beat up that bastard. No big feeling is ever had towards the original victim. It's just a license, or an excuse, to get in a fight. And, predictably, sometimes someone gets in over their head, falls down, hits their head on the pavement and dies.

[Jay R]

Better than the two ending up dead anyway.

I have seen it countless times in floods someone tries to be the hero and save the other person, dies and is unable to save them. That's very common, tragic and pointless.

No, it's not pointless. Because when I dive into the water, or enter the burning building, I don't know what's going to happen. If 60% of the time, I would save somebody and escape, and 40% of the time I would fail and die, that's a net gain. Similarly, if I have a 10% chance of saving 20 people, and a 90% chance of failing and dying, that's still a net gain for humanity.

This is similar to the logic that if I have a 1 chance in 5 of drawing to the flush, and will win eight times as much as I have to bet if I make the flush, that's a good bet, even though I'll lose it 80% of the time.

But counting bodies misses the point. I would rather try and possibly fail than stand and watch somebody die through my inaction.

Yes, it's even more convincing if it's somebody I love, but if it's a stranger, that won't stop me. Because the two people I'm comparing are the coward me and the hero me.

I know that both are real. And I know that I can choose which one to be at that moment.

[2D8HP]

.....counting bodies misses the point. I would rather try and possibly fail than stand and watch somebody die through my inaction.

Yes, it's even more convincing if it's somebody I love, but if it's a stranger, that won't stop me. Because the two people I'm comparing are the coward me and the hero me......


That's natural and even admirable, but every year I'm required to attend "Confined Space" training where we're taught to only attempt rescue by retracting their harness and never to enter the space ourselves to try and save our comrades lest another man die of asphyxiation, besides our comrade.

This year the example was of some county in Florida where multiple Fireman went and died, one after another, first to try two sewer pipe repair contractors, then their fallen comrades (because they had inadequate training and didn't wear supplied air).

A decade and a half ago I worked for a company that two employees in Texas (also trying to repair a pipe) die because of oxygen displacement (for some reason most of the cautionary tales in my training come from Florida and Texas, I suppose the guys there are less trained and/or more heroic than we in California, but I did hear one example of a guy in California who died while cleaning out the leaves of a dry swimming pool, because of the methane the leaves produced).

[Frozen_Feet]

@Jay R: You could've just quoted Robert A. Heinlein. Or, to paraphrase, "attempts to save people are moral even if they fail".

@2D8HP: oh yes, confined places and oxygen displacement. Fun stuff.

I'd say the point in those specific scenarios is that we know going after the unconscious person will fail. Like, there's no real question of whether you'll succeed - we know you won't. Risks are one thing, certainties are another.

[Jay R]

That's natural and even admirable, but every year I'm required to attend "Confined Space" training where we're taught to only attempt rescue by retracting their harness and never to enter the space ourselves to try and save our comrades lest another man die of asphyxiation, besides our comrade.

Yes, of course. I might take risks, but I would never simply die to attempt the impossible. "Secure your own mask first" is not just for airplanes.

Having said that, I've actually been in that position only once. I actually ran into a burning building to help carry a stranger on crutches downstairs and out. [Not much danger for me. The fire was on the other side. Something unusual would have had to happen for me to get caught in it.]

And no thought posted on this thread went through my mind during the entire episode.

[Florian]

The topic got me thinking. My country used to have a conscription-based citizen army, based on location, I´ve been FlaRak (Patriot system) and cross-trained Field Medic, because us Munich boys had the choice between that, MP or Mountain Rangers (which is actually a pretty tough and prestigious affair I shied away from, even when ranked at T1).

Bosnia happened during my tour of duty, the U.S. handling the No-Fly-Zone, so I had that stupid blue helmed, standard issue BW pistol and rifle along with a medkit and a com unit. We were young and reasonably well trained (and motivated), so we actually took the duty of protecting the civilians quite seriously and would have died for them, as were the trained soldiers and they're the civilians.

[AMFV]

There's a line somewhere that the greatest of all loves is that which will die for another person. Perhaps this has applied to beloved pets as well. However, what if one has no love for the person menaced with death? Why should one spend all of one's remaining life saving another person, when there is no love for that person in the rescuer's heart?

Well there are a lot of reasons why somebody might sacrifice themselves. I would say that personally "love" in this case can include much broader definitions than simply love as in what one feels for a family member.

[Donnadogsoth]

Well there are a lot of reasons why somebody might sacrifice themselves. I would say that personally "love" in this case can include much broader definitions than simply love as in what one feels for a family member.

Hmm. I wonder if this is the final analysis. Suppose we narrow the criteria, such as (A) taking a complete stranger's (B's) place for an execution. This would be a completely premeditated act, and give no honour, money, or any other advantage to the actor in question. In that case it seems like, and maybe I've just narrowed the goalposts so far as to admit nothing else, that the only answer for such a substitute death would be the placing of a transcendent value on B, and so A must love B, love being founded on an emotion which can become a habit of mind and action. The only alternative to this seems to be outright insanity, though A may be viewed as insane for such an action. Thoughts?

[Manga Shoggoth]

Hmm. I wonder if this is the final analysis. Suppose we narrow the criteria, such as (A) taking a complete stranger's (B's) place for an execution. This would be a completely premeditated act, and give no honour, money, or any other advantage to the actor in question. In that case it seems like, and maybe I've just narrowed the goalposts so far as to admit nothing else, that the only answer for such a substitute death would be the placing of a transcendent value on B, and so A must love B, love being founded on an emotion which can become a habit of mind and action. The only alternative to this seems to be outright insanity, though A may be viewed as insane for such an action. Thoughts?

Father Kolbe? Took the place of another man in Auschwitz. I believe there were other cases, but he's the first to come to mind.

(Have I just Godwined the thread?)

[Frozen_Feet]

No. You can't Godwin a thread when discussions of Nazis is topical, and when looking for examples of people who took another's place in an execution, Nazis are topical insofar as they executed a whole lot of people.

[Florian]

Hmm. I wonder if this is the final analysis. Suppose we narrow the criteria, such as (A) taking a complete stranger's (B's) place for an execution. This would be a completely premeditated act, and give no honour, money, or any other advantage to the actor in question. In that case it seems like, and maybe I've just narrowed the goalposts so far as to admit nothing else, that the only answer for such a substitute death would be the placing of a transcendent value on B, and so A must love B, love being founded on an emotion which can become a habit of mind and action. The only alternative to this seems to be outright insanity, though A may be viewed as insane for such an action. Thoughts?

You´re still working with the assumption that there has to be a relation between A and B, so the act in and by itself either has to bring some form of "gain" or would be counted as "insane". That makes your analysis plain and simple wrong. Morals, faith and conviction are often all it takes for someone to become a martyr, maybe summed up as accepting that there's way more out there than just small you.

[Frozen_Feet]

Or to put it simpler, A only has to place transcendent value on something, not necessarily B.

[Kyberwulf]

Honor, respect? It doesn't mean you have to have any value on the person dying. It could be that you value yourself and the ideals for which you stand. Principle I think it's called.

[Frozen_Feet]

Principle I think it's called.

Ohoho. Do I smell something burning?

[Scarlet Knight]

Did we just come to a peaceful, sensible agreement? On the internet?

Another miracle for Saint Maximilian Kolbe.

[Lacuna Caster]

S@tanicoaldo, has some statistics to back her up:

Don’t Be a Dead Hero: In some disasters, more rescuers die than original victims (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/rescuers_turning_into_victims_lessons_from_first_r esponders_on_saving_people.html)
Interesting article, so thanks for that. I guess people are more likely to be stupid than callous?


No, it's not pointless. Because when I dive into the water, or enter the burning building, I don't know what's going to happen. If 60% of the time, I would save somebody and escape, and 40% of the time I would fail and die, that's a net gain. Similarly, if I have a 10% chance of saving 20 people, and a 90% chance of failing and dying, that's still a net gain for humanity...

..I know that both are real. And I know that I can choose which one to be at that moment.
If you're interested in cost/benefit tradeoffs toward saving lives, you can do so comparatively cheaply by donating to various evidence-based charities (https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities). A rough estimate is that every 500-1000$ spent on mosquito netting statistically saves one life, for example, and other forms of spending can have a marked impact on overall quality of life.

[Florian]

Interesting article, so thanks for that. I guess people are more likely to be stupid than callous?

It´s a very "U.S."-centric article, tho. While yes, modern societies tend to outsource handling danger, so most of the time a prudent private person can´t actually make a correct assessment of the risks of a situation, a lot will depend on whether society as a whole deems it to be important to teach people how to handle those situations and work in concert with professional rescue workers.

I already mentioned that my country used to enforce conscription. You could either go for the army, health care system or rescue service. Beyond that, you can´t get a drivers license without getting basic emergency response training and you can´t get into certain fields of work without getting the job-specific hazard training. Even with conscription on temporary hold, undergoing the training and working in the field will place you higher on the waiting list for universities by giving additional credits.
So chances are good that (young) people actually have experience as a volunteer firefighter, THW or emergency rescue.

[Vinyadan]

That's natural and even admirable, but every year I'm required to attend "Confined Space" training where we're taught to only attempt rescue by retracting their harness and never to enter the space ourselves to try and save our comrades lest another man die of asphyxiation, besides our comrade.

This year the example was of some county in Florida where multiple Fireman went and died, one after another, first to try two sewer pipe repair contractors, then their fallen comrades (because they had inadequate training and didn't wear supplied air).

A decade and a half ago I worked for a company that two employees in Texas (also trying to repair a pipe) die because of oxygen displacement (for some reason most of the cautionary tales in my training come from Florida and Texas, I suppose the guys there are less trained and/or more heroic than we in California, but I did hear one example of a guy in California who died while cleaning out the leaves of a dry swimming pool, because of the methane the leaves produced).

Some time ago, a whole family of farmers was wiped out that way. The man fell into the dung pool, he fainted, his mother went to help him, she fainted too, and then the father also fainted, and they all died from suffocation.

[Donnadogsoth]

You´re still working with the assumption that there has to be a relation between A and B, so the act in and by itself either has to bring some form of "gain" or would be counted as "insane". That makes your analysis plain and simple wrong. Morals, faith and conviction are often all it takes for someone to become a martyr, maybe summed up as accepting that there's way more out there than just small you.

The morals, faith and conviction have to be based on some kind of emotion. No one "just does things" without some kind of emotional undergirding, even if such is unconscious relating to one's childhood. For A to so sacrifice themselves for B out of morals, faith and conviction, those things must have an emotional core, and I don't see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core. B may well be serving as a placeholder for the convictions, but the convictions exist for the sake of a placeholder, even one A doesn't even know the name of .

[2D8HP]

Interesting article, so thanks for that. I guess people are more likely to be stupid than callous?[....]


I don't think it's "stupid" (though that's part of it) so much as while they're sociopaths among us, for most people being self-sacrificing and altruistic towards others in their "tribe" is the normal human response.

I know that without my training, if I see a co-worker fall (while they're doing the periodic boiler de-scaling for example), my instinctive response is to go to them, not to worry about my own safety in that moment, I had to be taught to not attempt rescue.

Similarly to actively do the worst evils towards others, most have to be taught to demonize others as "not in the tribe".

How far to extend most humans natural altruism (is one's "tribe" your immediate family, your neighborhood, your nation, your sect, humanity, etc cetera) is something that is taught as well.

And yes a degree of selfishness is normal and natural as well, but so is a degree of altruism, which may be call "charity", "solidarity", or yes "love".

I can think of a certain nation that in a time if general prosperity started to extend the rights of citizenship to a segment of its population that previoudly wasn't thought of by the majority as "in the tribe", and I can think of other times of scarcity and trauma when societies divide themselves into "us and them", but even during those bad times remarkable altruism and heroism is shown by some.

People can be complex, but a lot of it is folks following the examples of those around them, while they're exceptions (saints and sociopaths) most imitate the actions of those around them, if they see heroism as the norm they'll be heroes, if they see cowardice as the norm they'll be cowards.

Monkey see, monkey do, especially (in humans) in what they learn from 0 to 5 (when folks are most moveable), and from 15 to 25 years old (when memories are the strongest).

[The Eye]

There are many kinds of love, what kind of love are talking about? The greeks had like four or five worlds for love.

[Scarlet Knight]

It's your thread; tell us which loves are ok to die for and which of the 5 you think aren't.

@v Sonnava... you're right; sorry 'bout that.

[2D8HP]

It's your thread; tell us which loves are ok to die for and which of the 5 you think aren't.


You may be confusing @The Eye with @Donnadogsoth, and the "death" thread wirh the "die" thread.

[Themrys]

I don't get why people treat dying so that someone else can live as something so very special.

The Harry Potter books state, again and again and again, how very brave and special Lily Potter was to sacrifice herself for her son.

What they neglect to mention is that every woman willingly risks her life so that a child can live when she willingly gets pregnant. Doubly so in third world countries. Pregnancy and birth are effing dangerous, and every adult woman knows that. Even the most coddled among us have read at least three novels where the hero's mother died in childbirth.

If we count willingness to risk one's life for a child instead of actual death, then Molly Prewett, married Weasley, mother of seven, is the greater hero.



As has already been said by others, most of those who die so that someone else can live aren't making a conscious decision to actually die. They only decide to take a risk.

Even incredibly brave people like, say, Sophie Scholl, probably had some hope of getting away with resisting the nazis, although they knew they'd more likely than not be caught eventually.


And except for mothers who sacrifice themselves so that their unborn children may live, I don't actually think most of the instances where someone dies for someone else are motivated by love towards a person.


If you asked me who'd be more likely to sacrifice himself for me, a man in love with me, or someone who just has principles and for some reason deems my life worth saving ... I'd always bet on the latter.
Romantic love is pretty cheap, all things considered.

[Vinyadan]

To be fair, you have a bigger chance of dying in a car accident. I doubt that "I might die: 0,01% chance!" factors in for many women in the West. For those with an heightened risk, or really find themselves having to make the choice, that's surely a different story.

And principles are like pants, they need something to keep them up, or you will end up with your butt showing.

[Jay R]

The morals, faith and conviction have to be based on some kind of emotion.

That's an interesting theory, but I see no basis for it. Many things are based on thought. Many things are based on habit.


No one "just does things" without some kind of emotional undergirding, even if such is unconscious relating to one's childhood.

I would much rather my life depended on the actions of somebody who does selfless things out of habit, without thinking about it at all, that on something as chancy as emotions.


For A to so sacrifice themselves for B out of morals, faith and conviction, those things must have an emotional core, and I don't see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core.

The one time I ran into a burning building, it was to help a total stranger. She was on crutches, and couldn't get down the stairs alone. I had no love for her, and wasn't thinking about somebody else I love. I don't really remember making a choice at all.

I didn't analyze my state of mind at the time, but I suspect that, to the extent that my actions were based on any emotion, it was pride. I'd rather think of myself as a brave man than a cowardly one.


B may well be serving as a placeholder for the convictions, but the convictions exist for the sake of a placeholder, even one A doesn't even know the name of .

Simply untrue. In the example above, it wasn't really about the person I helped, except that there was a person who needed help.

I've taken lifesaving, first aid, and CPR classes out of a straightforward rational belief that the world is better if I do. If I'm ever drowning, I hope somebody will risk themselves to save me. It's purely rational to train myself to do the same.

[Donnadogsoth]

And principles are like pants, they need something to keep them up, or you will end up with your butt showing.

What would you suggest?

[Donnadogsoth]

That's an interesting theory, but I see no basis for it. Many things are based on thought. Many things are based on habit.

No one does anything outside of emotion, even if it is the prospect of the emotional satisfaction of winning, of thinking, or of satisfying a habit, which itself was acquired because it answered some desire.


The one time I ran into a burning building, it was to help a total stranger. She was on crutches, and couldn't get down the stairs alone. I had no love for her, and wasn't thinking about somebody else I love. I don't really remember making a choice at all.

I didn't analyze my state of mind at the time, but I suspect that, to the extent that my actions were based on any emotion, it was pride. I'd rather think of myself as a brave man than a cowardly one.

Pride is joy of accomplishment. If your suspicion is right, then you acted out of that emotion whether that was conscious emotion or not.


Simply untrue. In the example above, it wasn't really about the person I helped, except that there was a person who needed help.

I've taken lifesaving, first aid, and CPR classes out of a straightforward rational belief that the world is better if I do. If I'm ever drowning, I hope somebody will risk themselves to save me. It's purely rational to train myself to do the same.

In the heat of the moment the person helped became a “concrete universal” for the expression of the your given motivation. You suspected pride; here the woman became a “pride object”.

[Vinyadan]

What would you suggest?

Most have already said it: love, faith, habit, instinct, pride, the fear of repercussions (from inside or outside)...

What I think it's important to say is that "knowing what would be better" (accepting the validity of a principle) doesn't mean "doing what would be better". People are weak, self-centered, etc. Socrates's brand of moral intellectualism (the cause of evil is ignorance of good) is something I don't see as right.

[Donnadogsoth]

Most have already said it: love, faith, habit, instinct, pride, the fear of repercussions (from inside or outside)...

What I think it's important to say is that "knowing what would be better" (accepting the validity of a principle) doesn't mean "doing what would be better". People are weak, self-centered, etc. Socrates's brand of moral intellectualism (the cause of evil is ignorance of good) is something I don't see as right.

Interesting.

The flaw I see in Socrates' doctrine is that it denies free will. But, with the modification that life might
present our free will two equally appealing goods, therefore making the deciding factor us rather than anything happening to us, it seems to work.

What I would add is something I've said before, that people need emotional reasons to do anything. The child does not smile unless it's happy, or it's been trained to fear the consequences of not smiling. So, I see the sense in needing emotional reasons to have principles. Principles must have some core emotional value for the individual for them to be adopted.

Which makes me wonder whether there is a unified emotional core or are human hearts just a box of random jigsaw puzzle pieces.

[Jay R]

No one does anything outside of emotion, even if it is the prospect of the emotional satisfaction of winning, of thinking, or of satisfying a habit, which itself was acquired because it answered some desire.

Sure, based on that generalized a definition of emotion. But on that basis, it doesn't lead to any conclusion beyond the idea that this action is motivated like other actions. It certainly doesn't lead to a conclusion about love alone. ["...I don't see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core."]


Pride is joy of accomplishment. If your suspicion is right, then you acted out of that emotion whether that was conscious emotion or not.

Which is absolute proof that it doesn't have to have love at the core, which was your statement I was trying to refute.


In the heat of the moment the person helped became a “concrete universal” for the expression of the your given motivation. You suspected pride; here the woman became a “pride object”.

I certainly don't know, but I doubt it. At the time, she was somebody who needed help, and was closer to a "task object".

Perhaps you're right, and I was motivated by pride, and she became a "pride object". But either way, when you were writing that paragraph, you were clearly able to "see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core," -- which is all I wanted to prove.

[2D8HP]

I'm too lazy to look up what is meant by "task object" and "pride object" but I would describe the actions listed upthread by @Florian , and @Jay R as "being awesome".

To quote Stan Lee: "'nuff said".

[Donnadogsoth]

Sure, based on that generalized a definition of emotion. But on that basis, it doesn't lead to any conclusion beyond the idea that this action is motivated like other actions. It certainly doesn't lead to a conclusion about love alone. ["...I don't see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core."]



Which is absolute proof that it doesn't have to have love at the core, which was your statement I was trying to refute.



I certainly don't know, but I doubt it. At the time, she was somebody who needed help, and was closer to a "task object".

Perhaps you're right, and I was motivated by pride, and she became a "pride object". But either way, when you were writing that paragraph, you were clearly able to "see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core," -- which is all I wanted to prove.

If Socrates is right and all are motivated by the Good, then the Good motivates everything we do. If the Good is a unity, then the fundamental emotion that moves us towards it must also be a unity, for how could multiple keys fit the same lock? We call this emotion love, the most powerful, the sort of thing that motivates a sane person to take another's place in an execution. All other emotions must be like distortions or ripples or fragments of this original emotion. What does duty mean without some sort of love for the authority one has sworn one's loyalty, or love or the rightness of being so dutiful? What does pride mean without a sense that one is satisfying one's deepest self in so cultivating it? Such motivations would be perverse. Even the need to “do” must stem from a well of need, a sense that one is pursuing the Good and therefore taps into love.

[Suttle]

People self-sacrifice because, media has been teaching us that such actions is a great thing for years.

It's not necessarily true just an arbitrary quality, media do the same with stalking behaviour portrayed as love and it can be just as harmful.

[Donnadogsoth]

People self-sacrifice because, media has been teaching us that such actions is a great thing for years.

It's not necessarily true just an arbitrary quality, media do the same with stalking behaviour portrayed as love and it can be just as harmful.

Media like videogames have been teaching us for years that going on shooting sprees is a great thing as well. Where are the millions of videogame spree killers?

[Suttle]

Media like videogames have been teaching us for years that going on shooting sprees is a great thing as well. Where are the millions of videogame spree killers?

It's not the same thing, are you really going to deny that media affect our actions, concepts and attitudes? This is such a shallow comparison is like going "Well super man fly in his movies I don't go on flying around after watching superman durrrr"

Just stop.

[RazorChain]

There's a line somewhere that the greatest of all loves is that which will die for another person. Perhaps this has applied to beloved pets as well. However, what if one has no love for the person menaced with death? Why should one spend all of one's remaining life saving another person, when there is no love for that person in the rescuer's heart?

Because in some situations not taking an action is worse than dying.

You have to live with yourself every day and I know persons who could not live with themselves because they did nothing even when they were under orders to do nothing

So let's say reverse this, you have to kill lots of innocent people, men women and children to save your own life. Would you do it?

[Donnadogsoth]

It's not the same thing, are you really going to deny that media affect our actions, concepts and attitudes? This is such a shallow comparison is like going "Well super man fly in his movies I don't go on flying around after watching superman durrrr"

Just stop.

Flying like Superman is impossible. Committing murder is not. But, murder has big consequences, so almost all videogamers elect not to.

Eating oneself spherical in response to food porn, however, has much smaller consequences than murder, so many more people obey food porn messages than obey murder messages.

[Donnadogsoth]

Because in some situations not taking an action is worse than dying.

You have to live with yourself every day and I know persons who could not live with themselves because they did nothing even when they were under orders to do nothing

So let's say reverse this, you have to kill lots of innocent people, men women and children to save your own life. Would you do it?

Isn't shame backed by love, or at least fear? Shame over not helping someone you loved, even as a mere neighbour? Or shame in response to society condemning you for not helping your neighbour?

Killing innocents to save myself?--kicking granny off the lifeboat? I would hope to have the moral integrity not to.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Donnadogsoth: "If the Good is a unity, then the fundamental emotion that moves us towards it must also be a unity, for how could multiple keys fit the same lock?"

You must not be a locksmith if you think your analogy holds any kind of water.

To wit, multiple keys fitting the same lock is dirt common. Almost all apartment buildings, for example, have keys which only fit the outer door and doors of individual apartments, and also a master key which fits all the locks in the building. Then there's electronic locks which can be programmed to discriminate on largely arbitrary criteria, such as PIN codes or biometric scanning.

[Donnadogsoth]

@Donnadogsoth: "If the Good is a unity, then the fundamental emotion that moves us towards it must also be a unity, for how could multiple keys fit the same lock?"

You must not be a locksmith if you think your analogy holds any kind of water.

To wit, multiple keys fitting the same lock is dirt common. Almost all apartment buildings, for example, have keys which only fit the outer door and doors of individual apartments, and also a master key which fits all the locks in the building. Then there's electronic locks which can be programmed to discriminate on largely arbitrary criteria, such as PIN codes or biometric scanning.

Fair enough. Here's a better analogy:

The idea of Number is not itself a number. If we wish to do mathematics, we first need to recognise numbers as numbers. We must participate in Number, in other words. How can we participate in something except on its own terms?

So with the Good as a unity, if it motivates everything we do, requires we participate in it on its own terms, which must be unified terms motivationally speaking, emotionally speaking. Essentially, we are motivated to approach the Good in terms of the master emotion, agape or love of neighbour, because that is the highest expression of goodness, which would rule the Good or which the Good would embody, without possibility of "two masters". Everything else is distortion.

[2D8HP]

Fair enough. Here's a better analogy:

The idea of Number is not itself a number......


Mark me down as of "sub-human animal intelligence" 'cause I didn't understand that ar all, I mean the words make sense, it's the combination of them that has me stumped.

[Florian]

Mark me down as of "sub-human animal intelligence" 'cause I didn't understand that ar all, I mean the words make sense, it's the combination of them that has me stumped.

No worries. Donna here exhibits the kind of logic we germans know from a certain time period, 33 to 45, without even realizing it, reflecting on it, and finding out that it has already been proven wrong, same with the "fear of death" discussion.

[Donnadogsoth]

Mark me down as of "sub-human animal intelligence" 'cause I didn't understand that ar all, I mean the words make sense, it's the combination of them that has me stumped.

Did you get the first paragraph, the part about Number?

[2D8HP]

Did you get the first paragraph, the part about Number?


This middle-aged high school drop out/"early graduate" did not.

Sorry.

[Donnadogsoth]

This middle-aged high school drop out/"early graduate" did not.

Sorry.

I don't think it's the "high school drop out" part that's in your way, I think it's the "middle-aged" part. Let me try to explain it better.

If you want to perform a mathematical calculation, such as an arithmetic problem, for example, you have to first recognise the tools you're going to use to do that calculation. I don't mean paper and pencil, I mean the numbers themselves. If the problem is 33 + 19, you have to recognise that 3, 1, 9, 33, and 19 are all numbers. But, to do that, you have to have an idea of what numbers are (just as someone in shop class can't use tools to work wood until they know the tools exist as tools). So, you have to connect that idea of what numbers are with the numbers 3, 1, 9, and so on. Once you have it in your head that these characters on the page are numbers, to the degree you understand arithmetic processes you can proceed to work with them to calculate the answer. The idea by itself, that you are comparing all of these individual numbers to, we can call Number.

Any better?

[warty goblin]

This middle-aged high school drop out/"early graduate" did not.

Sorry.

I majored in math in college, and am about two months from finishing a Ph.D. in statistics, which required a fair bit of math. It didn't make any sense to me either. I mean using the natural numbers requires assuming they exist, but it's not super-deep philosophy or anything. Day old chicks can count after all.

[Frozen_Feet]

That's because Donna has a habit of coating even simple points in nonsense rhetoric which looks like a copy-paste from Plato, Freud or the Bible.

I got what they tried to say, but I fail to see its relevance. I don't even agree that it's a good analogy. Once again, the rhetorical question in the middle of it falls apart even under cursory examination: it is pretty easy to participate in a thing on your own terms instead of the thing's. Nevermind that unlike the idea of Goodness, the idea of Numbers is not about acting, so you cannot participate in it at all.

The whole paragraph would make more sense if, instead of Number, it was talking about Calculation.

[S@tanicoaldo]

That's because Donna has a habit of coating even simple points in nonsense rhetoric(...)

Which is ironic since Aristotle spend a lot of his work on teaching how to and not to talk. Don't be too funny nor too boring, don't talk too much nor too little, it seems Donna skiped some books. :smallbiggrin: