Would you kill yourself to save a complete stranger?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Jewish metaphysics posits the individual as the universe.

All our values do not arise from a universal context; rather, it arises from our OWN individual perspective of what things are or appear to be. Love, Hate, Peace, War, ,joy, pain etc all these concepts arise from particularistic events in our individual lives that are afterward elevated into abstract concepts which we apply in universal terms. But first they exist in us. It us, the first person, which is always the root of all our experiences.

Since the essence of existing lies in the individual particular mode, in a scenario where you could potentially sacrifice yourself to save someone elses life, you have every right to put yourself over another; and if you happen to be in the other persons spot, you should accept the inevitable and die with a sense of dignity.

This sort of contradicts that absolutist metaphysics which sees a higher grace and meaning in sacrificing yourself for someone else; the more people, the more imperative becomes the need to self sacrifice. This is so because that metaphysics posits the universal as being of primary significance relative to the particular; meaning, whole armies of people could potentially be sacrificed for some glorious 'goal' far out in time, because each particular is merely an item of a larger universal. An interchangeable piece, in other words.

While I see the logic in a case where more lives are involved, in the individual 1 for 1 scenario, I defend a person's right to save himself over saving another's. Though it becomes more harrowing once you know 10 of you's could survive of only you sacrificed yourself.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Jewish metaphysics posits the individual as the universe.

All our values do not arise from a universal context; rather, it arises from our OWN individual perspective of what things are or appear to be. Love, Hate, Peace, War, ,joy, pain etc all these concepts arise from particularistic events in our individual lives that are afterward elevated into abstract concepts which we apply in universal terms. But first they exist in us. It us, the first person, which is always the root of all our experiences.

Since the essence of existing lies in the individual particular mode, in a scenario where you could potentially sacrifice yourself to save someone elses life, you have every right to put yourself over another; and if you happen to be in the other persons spot, you should accept the inevitable and die with a sense of dignity.

This sort of contradicts that absolutist metaphysics which sees a higher grace and meaning in sacrificing yourself for someone else; the more people, the more imperative becomes the need to self sacrifice. This is so because that metaphysics posits the universal as being of primary significance relative to the particular; meaning, whole armies of people could potentially be sacrificed for some glorious 'goal' far out in time, because each particular is merely an item of a larger universal. An interchangeable piece, in other words.

While I see the logic in a case where more lives are involved, in the individual 1 for 1 scenario, I defend a person's right to save himself over saving another's. Though it becomes more harrowing once you know 10 of you's could survive of only you sacrificed yourself.

edit on 6-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the introduction on Jewish metaphysics. I've never had the chance to consider it before. I personally find more value in the particular over the universal, almost to a point where I'm not sure any universal exists. But if I had the chance to save 10 particulars over 1, I would probably do so. But then it raises the question: is the individual, the one who says I when speaking about himself, not a particular but a universal in his own mind? Perhaps the only universal? Maybe I'm straying off topic...

At this point in my life I think I would kill myself to save a child. I don't fear death. I think I have been there many times before. Aside from that, I would want the child to have a chance to experience life.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


There's no stated exposition of a Jewish metaphysics in rabbinic literature, though many contemporary Jewish writers have agree more or less on the existence of a consistent metaphysical doctrine underlying the Hebrew Sciptures.

For instance, notice how the Hebrew Bible starts with a basic universal scenario - the creation of the earth, man, animals etc, discussing essential archetypal potentialities, and then in chapter 12, focuses in on just one man, Abraham, and his own journey from a civilization which emphasized the universal over the collective (Babylon) to live out on his like a vagabond; likewise, when the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt they again left a universalistic civilization that enslaves masses of people to build massive monuments celebrating Egypts "glory", which often ends up as a tomb for the deceased pharoah. Again, the Israelites leave this universal to live in the desert on their way to the 'holy land'.

The metaphysics is essentially clear: the Hebrew Bible emphasizes the PARTICULAR over the universal. But at the same time, it doesn't totally do away with the concept of the universal; there is a medium, or middle path between the individual and universal which human beings should trod. The book of judges reads like a theological-political document when one analyzes it's basic features; the book takes off from the Israeli exodus from Egypt - the tyranny of the universal, and as the book describes in the beginning "in those days, everyone did what was good in their eyes" the early Israelites set up an anarchist society; but with each generation, and after each 'judge', things appear to be growing more and more corrupt, until by the time of Samuel, all the people came and demanded that he appoint a 'king' over the people; Samuel objected, believing that the anarchist ideal best supports the aims of the individual; nevertheless, God intervenes and tells Samuel to assent to the peoples will, as it is He, God, whom they reject, and not him. In other words, human moral frailty forces the need for government and state; the Israelites went in the other direction towards monarchical government, though, a monarchical government limited by a constitution (a constitutional monarchy).

So while the particular is definitely the emphasis, one cannot just totally disregard the presence of the universal.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best. Government is a necessary evil. Without it, human beings lose control of themselves until, as the book of judges alludes to, they reach a state of decadence where they seek government to restore order.

first let me say that i'm not bragging or seeking any glory for my self. i have risked my life for others four times and risked losing my freedom once to this point in my life.

it's always been in my nature, to help someone in an emergency or stressful situations. it's always been there, even as a child when i became old enough to understand things, i always felt the need to help others. i don't think i could live with myself if i didn't. well maybe if they were a murderous bastard i wouldn't try to save them. if you read some of my posts you would think that i was a real hard ass, and at times i am. but i do have compassion for my fellow man and think every one should be willing to help others in these type situations.

now to address the question asked, i would kill myself for family, or a unknown child up till the age of eighteen . i believe i would kill myself for a hundred or a million people. as for one individual, i don't know.

let me explain what i mean, if i can make the thoughts clear.

for family there is no question, i love them and my life is nothing as far as they are concerned. for a unknown child up till the age where they can reason, i have no problem with that.this is a time that they are learning and haven't become corrupted. i know there are different views here but this is for the sake of argument. after the age where they can reason to the age of eighteen there is still a chance that they can do or become any thing they want, even if they have become corrupted, they still might see the error of their ways and change. at the age of eighteen, the law and many others see them as a adult and this is when they become the individual i mentioned above.

now for the 100 or 1 million where i said i believe i would, i know in my mind and heart that it would be the right thing to do. in the scheme of things, odds are out of those numbers, there maybe some or one, who go on to better the world. even if they didn't, it still to me would be the right thing to do. not to mention that they might have children who would do the same. but you see i love life, and no matter how much i bitch and moan about it, i love it, and don't want to die. i'm not afraid of death, but i'm in no hurry to get there. that's why i said i believe would.

and for the individual, i guess the above paragraph goes for them also.

also i would like to say to the posters that said killing your self is a sin. the way i see it, i think God would not see it this way.

remember this.

> New American Standard Bible
13“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. 14“You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16“You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17“This I command you, that you love one another.

if it was for no purpose at all then no, but if it was for a great rememborale purpose, yes

Originally posted by AdamLaw

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
I would not kill myself. Depending on the particular circumstances i would risk my life for a stranger.

Let's put it clear and simple. You have to shoot yourself in the head to save the 1 stranger, child, 100 person, millions or mankind.

That makes me GOD. The power over so many people. Even a strangers life, to them I am a God.

So if I say, "You know I think I'll pass on trying out this new instant trepanation method... Sorry about all those dead bodies, by the way." then they'll understand. 'twas Gods will, after all.




(read; no. I'd want to shoot myself in the head as much as I'd want a hole in the head which is not very much! lol)

Originally posted by AdamLaw
good to see this is going where I want it to go.

are all lives equal?

Is a child's life worth more than an 80 years old man?

edit on 6-10-2012 by AdamLaw because: (no reason given)

What if in the act of giving their life to save others, it was simply to become a meal for the next week.

OP stew, OP jerky, roast OP with basil and thyme, fried OP and beans with saffron rice, with a rich thick creme of OP brain over sweet pickled OP eyeball and jelly for desert..

*stares at op through his monitor*

Yes, because I have no dependents

If I had children and sacrificed myself for a stranger, who would support them?



Same goes for euthanasia - it's a personal choice as long as you have 0 dependents.

Killing yourself is suicide. I'd die defending someone from someone, but not by committing suicide at my own hand.

The whole question seems weird.

No No A Thousand Times No!

To all who say they would I say 'It is Easy to be Noble in Theory'.

Just My opinion.

I would not shoot myself in the head for any reason what so ever. At least not while in my rational mind. I couldn't say what I would do in a bout of severe, untreated psychosis. The only exception that I can think of is if I knew that I wouldn't be around much longer anyway, say I had a terminal illness or something like that but even then I'm thinking that I would have a hard time reckoning that I was about to kill myself no matter the reason.

Now if it came to some sort of disaster scenario where I had the opportunity to try and save others even though I would be at risk myself, I would like to think that I would at least try to save others. Still I can not say definitively what I would do because I have never been in that situation.

As for are all lives created equal... yes and no. In the big picture yes, I and my family are no more important or special than anyone. However, I have a strong biological need to preserve myself and I have a strong emotional tie to my family which is why I would always save my family over someone I do not know even though in the grand scheme of things my Husband has the same "value" as anyone reading this.

reply to post by Samuelis

In a dangerous situation, the hero thinks of others first and acts. The coward thinks of himself first, maybe doing nothing.

This is a extremely narrow and simplistic vision regarding human behavior that it might just as well be stated as complete BS. Even if I would accept that it may indeed happen in a very small number of cases, those would probably be situations where the actor (posthumous hero) just does not think at all but reacts solely based in subconscious imperatives...

We are all cowards at heart, that is what has permitted the species to proliferate, something that we do not like to be pointed out to those romantically infatuated by the human potential, but a sad reality nevertheless...

Consider for instance armies and how they process or deal with "procedural" cowardice, you would learn something especially if you looked to how it has evolved from pre-Roman era until today. Even to the steps that some cultures have gone to improve stoicism among their citizens, like the Spartans.

There is also a very cool science fiction universe that deals in particular with this topic. The Larry Niven's Known Space book series, mostly known by the Ring World book (part of a trilogy), has a species that due to its heard mentality gives high consideration to not only simple self preservation but has exceptional issues facing any type of danger to a point of race paranoia. (See Pierson's Puppeteers, one of my favorite fictional alien races).

My life is not more valuable than someone elses, so I would sacrifice myself for someone I really like, or for a crowd of people to survive something.

Life can be fun, but its not like Im going to do bad things just to keep being alive. I will easily let myself die for a worthy cause.

I should say that I believe we dont really die at all, only our bodies do. I want to make my beliefs clear so people dont think Im super brave or anything. In my mind Im not giving up my only life and then spend eternity as a dead person. I give up this life, go back to source, and reincarnate again on some physical planet.

No, I wouldn't. Why should I? Is my life not as worthy?

I wouldn't expect someone to commit suicide to save me either.

reply to post by AdamLaw


That is not the goal of Life to die for someone else. You live for yourself. Thats what Life is about, survival and experience. But you still have the Free Will to sacrifice yourself, if thats what you really want. At least you will die free and with the illusion you did something good.

To kill myself to save another human? No way in hell. First I don't even know if the one to be saved wont die the day after the sacrifice. And second, I consider my Life as my biggest and most worthy possession. That means it will go before anything else. Anyone that would gamble it to save someone/something else couldnt weight its importance at all and failed to understand it at all. Some will do it to free themselves or as a way to salvation. To me they fooled themselves nothing more. Yet some can only feel liberated this way and i see them as lost souls.

Use my life for a greater good? Like saving a Planet or a World? That is another story but alas it only exists in books and tale with good endings. The real world is different and way more complex.

I wouldn't hesitate for a second if it was to save a loved one but that's not what your are asking.

Depends on who the stranger is. If its a bad person ie. Rapist, child abuser, thief, drug dealer, ect then "NO" I would save the bullet for them.

Now if it was to save a child I would. We are all going to die one day so why not go out like a hero and make your life and death count for something good

Originally posted by Samuelis
So your saying you don't believe you have a soul?
What if reincarnation exists and your reborn as a rock for being such a coward?

You can only evolve with reincarnation, not devolve

You were already a rock aha.

Deliberately killing one's self for another is a highly unusual situation.

There are many here who have put themselves in harm's way to save others facing death. The instinct is to fight to survive if there is no other option. Those who consider themselves cowards have probably not been put to the test. They might amaze even themselves as to how they act when the need arises.

Originally posted by Samuelis
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

In a dangerous situation, the hero thinks of others first and acts. The coward thinks of himself first, maybe doing nothing.

You would never know which one you are until presented with such situation.

But I would like to think I would sacrifice myself for a million people, anyone who wouldn't doesn't deserve to be alive imo.

It has nothing to do with either being a hero or a coward,the overiding factor would be the strength of the individual self preservation instinct,this is what would drive us,until that particular scenario were to present itself,would we know how we would act?