Bob Stewart

Tyler Durden,

I have several questions about your use of some words.

You said, Why do you think that one does not sacrifice one's life to save one's family unless he/she values his life more than his family's. The dictionaries that I have checked do not support such a view. For example,

from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary/Thesaurus

1sac•ri•fice \"sa-kre-'fs, also -fes or -'fz\ noun [ME, fr. OF, fr. L sacrificium, fr. sacr-, sacer + facere to make ó more at do] (13c)
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; esp : the killing of a victim on an altar
2 : something offered in sacrifice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>

Nothing here supports your view of "sacrifice", does it?

From the OED- "To surrender or give up (something) for the attainment of some higher advantage or some dearer object." This seems to be just the opposite of the qualification you would attach to "sacrifice".

Beyond these two observations, even if it were the case that in order to sacrifice my life for another, I had to value my life more, and even if it were the case that in order to act altruistically I had to sacrifice (your notion of "sacrifice") something, it doesn't seem to follow that there are no altruistic actions. If I gave up my life, which I valued more than my son's, in order to save my son, that would be an altruistic act, by your definition, wouldn't it?

I know there is more to say beyond this, but I don't want to go beyond this without soe response-- I might be misunderstanding your point.

Bob Stewart

John Page

Hi Tyler:

Screaming inconsistencies here:

1. Apparently you do have an interest in exploring appearances. Seems for you that one needs to know a perpetrator's motive before determining whether altruism has occured. Correct?
2. Some people may fake humility but it doesn't follow that all humble people act in that way for the reasons you suggest.
3. I believe #2 exemplifies one of your unexamined assumptions, (Aristotelian or Fregian, I don't care ).

Finally, are you suggesting the human mind can know anything more than appearances?

Cheers, John

Tyler Durden

Because of the intrinsic value of the action i have explained above.

Au contraire. Listing dictionary definitions that do not spell out the intrinsic valuation of the action does not necessarily mean there isn't any support.

This definition does not deviate or differ from mine quite in the slightest. If i sacrificed "something" to offer to a deity, it must be precious - not cheap or trivial. And if i sacrificed my life to save another, then it must be "something precious."

Nothing here disagrees with my definition. Were you too prematurely happy to post before you read it carefully?

Still consistent. I destroy my life for another's - provided that that person's life is more valuable than mine.

Ding ding we have a winner.
Given up/lost is my definition. An act of sacrifice cannot be a gain, can it?

Wrong. If you meant that my definition is not quite spelled out in so much words, true. However, if you meant to piss in the well and say that my definition is alien, you have obviously not succeeded.

Furthermore, i checked the definition in merriam webster. You failed to list the 4th definition: Loss. Slightly disingenuous of you not to.

Yes this is not quite the definition of sacrifice - it is "gain" in the theistic sense. I gain eternal life by sacrificing my current one in an altruistic action. The remaining vestiges of Christian morality infects even the most devout atheists. The irony is almost too much!

Yup. However, it is not the only definition of sacrifice - and one you have overlooked/surpressed for some reason.

Yes. Do you value your life more than your son's? Now, don't be shy.

You either misunderstood completely (by denying the intrinsic value of sacrificing something in order to "gain" something else) or you were not being honest.

Tyler Durden

True, and one has to look beyond appearances (lip service) in order to get at the true motives. Correct?

Oh why not? If people learn of the prescriptive norm declared in the biblical phrase of Luke 14/18, then they will evaluate being exalted as an end to the means of being humble. It's called psychology.

And what would these "unexamined assumption" be, precisely, if not a refusal to take any human action at face value? What does Aristotle or Frege have to do with assumptions, if i am to take you seriously?

Ah, the relativist speaks. I am saying that there are potential frameworks to assess the underlying mechanism of human behavior that does not lend itself to pure appearances.

So, where are those "screaming inconsistencies?" Or are you prone to overstatements like Bob is?

Tyler Durden

...this time, the thesarus:

This is the religious use of the term - to sacrifice an object to curry favors from a deity. However, this is not what i am adressing as an act of sacrifice in the day to day life in a modern secular society.

An action that "loses," "drops" or "forfeit" is a loss, not a gain.

To forgo is to give up the enjoyment of, or do without - obviously a loss. To eschew is to shun to avoid on moral grounds. To forbear is to hold back and abstain. To cede is to yeild...

These words all dovetails with my definition of sacrifice as a loss.

JP2

Two issues:

1) Is the "morality" of an act judged by the intention or the end result? That is, must an altrusitic act be pre-meditated or - if an action unintentionally yields an undesirable consequence for the perpetrator and others benefit from this detriment - can an altruistic act be perpetrated accidentally?

2) If we were to presume that one only acts "selflessly" due to the potentiality for "instrinsic enrichment" from such an act, where does this enrichment come from if not from some tanglible degree of empathy? If we act out of "empathetic understanding" for the plight of others, and the acting out of our empathy towards others makes us feel "good", then the question must be asked: do we help others because it makes us feel good or does it make us feel good because we help others? There's an important causality distinction here.

For the record, I believe that egosim is partly necessitated by the very facticity of our epistemic foundations (whose perspective can we see things from if not our own?) but that this in no way eliminates the possibility of an altruistic act. Nonetheless, I think that the questions I raised above need to be answered (by Godot, Tyler and anyone else espousing this position) before any meaningful debate can continue.

John Page

Yes, but this is not the sense in which I started using the word appearances. All we have is appearances, even the "true motive" is what appears so to the observer.
(This in response to my suggesting that not all humble people acts that way because it produces praise and raises their status - your claim).
...Because your claim excludes people that appear humble, not because they wish to do so but because they all p[eople as equal and see their place in the world less egotistically than you seem to assume.
See immediately above.
Just as much as Russell and Witty.
I don't understand. Please provide an example of an impure appearance.
See above.
No, but I am prone to bob when accused of overstatements.

Cheers, John

Godot

Premeditation infers some forethought prior to action being taken. Weighing up of the pro's & con's prevent an act from being altruistic. As to accidental perpetration.... I had only considered actionable items. Let me think about it.

It is an important distinction to make, but I would think that neither makes an altruistic act. Whether helping out makes you feel better or you feel better from acting out, you still benefit from the action. IMO, that precludes altruism.

I would mildly disagree given my contentions in previous posts. But you're welcome to make up your own mind on the subject.

pinhos

I think most of the discussion has assumed that to be altruistic, an act has to be perfectly altruistic. I think that if some one does something to help some one else and gets a "10% satisfaction" out of his awareness that he has done a praiseworthy act, then the "90% altruistic" act is still altruistic

Bob Stewart

Tyler Durden,

An acknowledgement--

Main Entry: 1sac·ri·fice
Pronunciation: 'sa-kr&-"fIs, also -f&s or -"fIz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacr-, sacer + facere to make -- more at DO
Date: 13th century
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2 : something offered in sacrifice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>
4 : LOSS <goods sold at a sacrifice>
5 : SACRIFICE HIT

You are right! When I cut and pasted the definition of "sacrifice" the last two entries (4 and 5) were omitted. I cut and pasted from a dictionary application that I own and, oddly enough, though it is a Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it doesn't include the last two entries. (I checked a few other entries in this application and they are short as well-- so much for this application). I went to an on-line M-W dictionary and it is as appears above. So, now we are looking at the same dictionary entry (aren't we)? I don't see what difference it makes, but maybe that is because I am still not clear about your use of "sacrifice". So, indulge my questions, if you please.

Is it your view, as you have been stating it from the point at which you entered this thread, that in order for a sacrifice to occur there must be a net loss on the part of the individual making the sacrifice. This seems to fit with your contention that in order for me to sacrifice my life for the life of another, I have to value my own life over his/hers. I don't want to misattribute, so I await your response.

Bob Stewart