-
29
Sep
Disclaimer: This is a completely personal post has nothing to do with design or branding.
An 18-year old Filipino construction worker saves 30 people in exchange for his own life. After anticipating a huge wave coming from the river, Muelmar Magallanes rushed through the whole neighborhood, one-by-one saving people until his energy left him and was swept away by the current.
I am deeply moved by the acts of Muelmar Magallanes who has been branded a hero. People all over the world are praising him because he sacrificed his life for others.
But were his acts that truly a sacrifice? Or were they acts of a higher value?
“Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. ” —Ayn Rand
Rand, one of my favorite authors, has been a strong advocate of the thought that sacrifice is for the weak-willed. Before you react however, try to understand how her definition of sacrifice is different from what we commonly believe it to be.
“Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.”
To put it into proper context, let me paint two situations.
Situation 1: Juan is a 30 year old office worker who supports an alcoholic brother, a lazy sister and a good-for-nothing dad who gambles all day. 80% of what he earns goes to his family. At the end of the day, he consoles himself by saying that he’s “sacrificing” for a greater good.
The reason why Rand points out that sacrifice is an evil is because of situations like that of Juan. When a person sacrifices (in Juan’s situation) why does the person receiving the sacrifice have to do it at the expense of Juan? What right does Juan’s family have to say that they deserve the Juan’s hardwork more than Juan? Is it because Juan earns more than them and that it’s for the greater good that he has to sacrifice for the others? Does he have to place his future’s financial safety in jeopardy by virtue of “family ties?”
In situation one, the concept of sacrifice becomes completely distorted that instead of becoming a value, it becomes an excuse. Does the line, “Hindi mo ba kaya magsakripisyo para sa akin?” sound familiar? People are using sacrifice to get what they want at the expense of another person’s happiness.
Situation 2: Muelmar loves his family and the neighborhood more than anything else in the world. He loves them so much that he places their lives at a higher value than that of his. His sacrifice stems from the fact that he has a value system that he understands and embraces fully—even if it costs him his life.
Contrast the first to the second situation. In Juan’s case, his acts of “good” stem from pity and a lack of self-understanding. He helps his family because religion and society dictate him to do so. On the other hand, Muelmar’s actions are based on real values—love, justice, human life. He sacrificed because he accepts that there are greater and more important things in the world than his life.
These ideas may be difficult to swallow the first time around as they seem to be anti-religion. To a certain extent, they are. Christianity dictates that everyone, including undeserving people should be helped and we should all be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others. However, if that sacrifice comes at the expense of our own happiness and well-being, shouldn’t we start questioning ourselves? Is it fair to us if we’re living lives we don’t want for the sake of others?
(Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against altruism and charity because these people have placed the lives of others as the most important in their lives. But what of everyone else?)
Although it might be hard, true sacrifice generates a sense of fulfillment. On the other hand, the false type drains you and leaves you weaker day by day. Let’s ask ourselves today, are we sacrificing right?
- Published by Dwight in: Personal Thought-Provoking Ideas
- If you like this blog please take a second from your precious time and subscribe to my rss feed!
6 Responses to “Is Sacrifice truly a Good Thing?”
Amen
Ah the John Galt speech. I remember the part where he (or she) mentions about the case of the baby and the mother ( for me it was actually convincing). Ayn rand borrows the notion of happiness as the highest good from Aristotle. However I’d like to share my own version of what sacrifice is and how it should be understood.
When a person commits himself to any sacrificial or altruistic action it must come from his so-called “good will”. If this “good-will” is not present then it is not sacrifice. If happiness “in itself” is the motive and end product of our actions then it can never be truly a sacrificial act (or rather, because of self-interest, then nobody would truly commit himself to any sacrificial act for the other). It is from one’s duty and good will that one is willing to sacrifice himself.
In your first case, it would seem as if Juan is sacrificing himself for nothing and that he should rather pursue his own happiness rather than supporting his no-good family. He now has a dilemma: should i continue to support my no-good family or should I pursue my own happiness? If he decides to pursue his own happiness well then good for him; however what if he decides otherwise? In this case, the notion of “sacrifice” itself stems from the good will and his understanding of the call of duty–that his action must be made known and emulated by all and that it must treat others not as a means to his own ends but treat others as an end. Juan would then realize that, like others, because he/she is my father, my brother, and my sister, I have the responsibility and the duty to help others so that my actions would constitute something “far greater” than myself ( a good the encompasses all). I believe this notion is the basis for all sacrificial/altruistic action.
The second case is actually a concrete manifestation of what I have discussed earlier- his love makes him more aware of his duty to do what is necessary even if it would not necessarily constitute his own happiness ( he might not live trying to save the others and in essence he may not achieve the sense of happiness that he so desires). I believe that the “higher value” you speak of here is the value of the good.
I do not contest that other people would rather pursue happiness as the motive for any of their actions. Others would even contend that we cannot always follow what duty asks from us. However it is clearly evident that there are people who would heed the call of duty even at the risk of their happiness and their lives– this I believe is the true meaning and manifestation of sacrifice.
@dwah: I apologize if this is long and to some extent opposite to your argument on sacrifice. I was once an ardent follower of Rand but in the end I could not bring myself to her ideas. I would just like to give my 2-cents in this post. You may delete this post as you wish.
Maybe lets just leave it like that, he being a hero and all, Its a lot better that way. May his soul Rest In Peace.
Rand does not define her morality in terms of happiness, that is hedonism, as opposed to Objectivism.
Happiness is an emotional reward, but it is not the standard by which she says actions should be judged, and therefore our short-term happiness is not the determining factor in whether something is right or wrong.
She says that actions should be judged by the standard of their effect over the entire lifespan of the individual, and defines a set of necessary moral values that will accomplish this: reason, purpose and self-esteem. This may or may not bring happiness today, but will almost certainly bring happiness in the long run on balance.
Something is a sacrifice if we get less in return than we “pay”. However note that Rand is not referring to money or specific things or emotions, but to the overall effect on all of our values: career, our moral values, our ideas, character, happiness, friends, family, etc. Everything. The question to be answered is: can it be done so that on balance we are not losing something of equal or greater importance to us?
On the other hand, to carelessly give up our life for people we don’t know, without thought and with recklessness, just because we heard else someone say it is a good thing to do, would be wrong.
@Ajao – Hmmm. I think what you’ve stated is actually what Ayn Rand was trying to clear out regarding the word “sacrifice” – to give up a lesser value for a higher value – which in case she defined as an evil. If Muelmar then has “love for neighbor” as his highest value, then dying wouldn’t have been “sacrifice” in Rand’s terms.
Is it maybe because the word “sacrifice” has been embedded with very positive subconscious effect – coming from a very religious country – that we are having trouble questioning its premise and its moral basis? (Stated not as a derogatory remark, but an actual question posed.) I for one have been brought up with several religious influences, and yet it is also difficult for me to stomach that some hardworking and noble people are sacrificing their lives for undeserving individuals – within the limited capacity of my opinion of course.
A particular experience I have I want to share, I’ve a cousin who is gay. But because the traditional stance is to ostracize homosexuals, of which includes bringing shame to that individual’s immediate family, my cousin decides to turn away from his genetic disposition and follow the path. Thus he marries, still living under his parents’ roof, and whenever we see him, this cloud of unhappiness is always apparent – again within the limited capacity of my opinion. To deny your identity for the sake of your familial obligation? A total moral dilemma, of which I side with the idea of “fuck the family if they are ignorant and be yourself.”
But it really doesn’t matter which side we really are on right? In the end, I think what this issue brings up is that we shouldn’t judge people by the simple sight of their actions. To go deeper into understanding – no matter how limited – of their intentions, and then we decide on a very personal circumstance.
And Jeff Montgomery, thanks for making things a bit clearer. Great great great piece of defining matters in those 5 paragraphs.
Good day to all.
@Ajao I don’t see your argument as an “opposite” to mine. They’re the same thing, phrased differently by two people who’ve experienced different things.
@Jeff I just wonder, if Rand is looking for balance, then how is objectivism different from other forms of philosophy that emphasize the same thing such as Taoism? But I do agree that she has a holistic view of how we should not be “shortchanged” as we try to achieve balance be it in all aspects of our life—money, objects or values. Selfish, but rational.
@Ken The gay example is one of the many situations that demonstrate how our notion of sacrifice can go unquestioned and cause terrible and lifelong sense of unhappiness to an individual. And yes, we are often too eager to jump in and judge, but we have to probe much deeper if we want to find real answers.
Leave a Reply