Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I have no idea.
I don't think I would have made it my goal to die.
I would risk myself-yes. For the sake of a specific other/others. Not for the sake of abstract altruism. And by the way, judging by experience, I would not think about the risk. And if you think about it, also from experience, there is a risk of simply not having time.
Then it's embarrassing and incomprehensible. Either I was stupid, or I got cold feet…
Would you overcome the fear of death? We are already doing this, where to go.
But to die… it's not too much in our power at all. Almost always, in any situation, something can happen – and bam! not dead. So who are you after that?
Oh, yes, I'm not an atheist. In any case, I don't consider myself one. And in general, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, to be an atheist in our time. Who to fight? Why focus on God if you don't believe? The Inquisition, let's say, still exists, but this is too much. Spend half your life pretending to be a believer, becoming a priest, and then only telling the inquisitor that you've always been an atheist… otherwise, he won't even look. Well, an atheist, so what? Get out of the Vatican and that's it.
…
Why.
And then. What is my life without others? Here you break up with one person, and then there is no need to live. Especially if you didn't save anyone.
You didn't save one, you didn't save the other, and they'll all die. I will be left alone in space, there is no one to pity me, poor.))
This is at the level of instinct. Just not everyone is developed, people are imperfect.
If you think about it, you should always take risks. Sacrifice yourself all the more. You may be the most important person to complete the task. Moreover, logically speaking, you know your own value better than the other person, so the choice in favor of others is “by definition” unfounded; it is based on the unknown, dubious and unproven.
Ideally, you should know everything about everyone in order to make a decision… but we don't know. So it's easier not to worry, just take the risk.
We're all going to die anyway, and life is risky and requires sacrifice.
…
I don't want to say that this is correct. On the contrary, I want to say that this is wrong. Better than cowardice or timidity, but no more.
The right thing to do is always to start with a goal, a common sense, to take risks not for the sake of the other, but for the sake of something that is greater than both of you, ideally for the sake of something that has absolute, absolute value.
It just doesn't always work out. To put it mildly. But we must act.
Neither faith nor atheism affect the process of self-sacrifice. Only religious people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of an empty idea. Some specific myth and its hero (Christ, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna)
And atheists – for the sake of real people, their lives, their happiness, their freedom.
Is the savanna baboon – who sacrifices his life – an atheist or a believer by attacking the leopard and allowing the females and cubs to escape? Wolf, in the battle for the feeding territory (Homeland) of his pack? A dog leading a bear away from its owner?
All of us, like other social animals, are naturally endowed with a complex of social instincts that make us sacrifice ourselves – in special situations… Especially in cases when we are not the “highest elite” – for which the self-worth of our own life is higher than the lives of hundreds and thousands of our relatives!
I think it's more a matter of instinct than a mental attitude (of course, if ideological zombification is excluded). Perhaps nature has laid down in us a mechanism for sacrificing ourselves for the good of others (especially if we are talking about the good of the majority). Of course, this instinct in our being is opposed by the instinct of self-preservation, and here the result of the struggle will be determined by the degree of superiority of one over the other (perhaps already at the level of genetics).
The main mistake of such reasoning is the idea that a person needs external motivation to commit certain actions. He did well, because he will go to heaven; he did not do badly, because God will punish him.
Actions do not always depend on the degree of religiosity. After all, for example, sometimes it happens that a person acts abominably, but sees it as a manifestation of kindness. Often – because he finds justification for his actions in the sacred texts (let's not say that he interprets them very freely).
But back to your question. Self-sacrifice is common in many species. Unless people's instincts have reached a new level. I read somewhere that the key to success of homo sapiens is caring for others. Mutual aid is the foundation of human society. At least in theory. So it is normal for people to save the life of their neighbor, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack of it.
But the justification of the risk is a separate conversation. I think even the church fathers will agree that self-sacrifice is not an end in itself. I would even say that senseless self-sacrifice is rather a sin, since it is very similar to suicide.
Would an atheist sacrifice his life for others? This depends on the situation and again has nothing to do with views on religion. This is a question from the plane of logic (and a bit of ethics).
For example, I would not try to save a drowning person without knowing how to swim, so as not to create unnecessary difficulties for rescuers. But if there was no one else to help, I don't think I would just stand there and watch the person die. I would try to do something about it.
PS: I can't call myself a categorical atheist, but I'll just say that I prefer to be guided by the arguments of reason rather than faith.
Yes. Although I, like everyone else, am afraid of losing what I have, I believe that I have a simpler attitude to life than many people, which means that I still do not cling to it so much. Although, it all depends on the situation, maybe I'll be more useful alive. In any case, it will be difficult for me to just observe if there is anything I can do
Without a second thought, if it were the lives of 3-4 people close to me or my dog. And even if the lives of my loved ones are not in danger, but my death could change someone's life (or its quality) globally for the better, I would easily do this , and I think I would be able to prepare them for this, convince them, explain why this is the only way to make it easier to accept the situation. Think it's important to do it on the positive, not posing as a victim, not allowing anyone to feel guilty or be obliged, without leaving anyone any option to feel sorry for me, on the contrary, want to live with a light heart, it was not a lifelong heavy burden, a sort of reckoning, and had the joyous and unexpected possibilities to their advantage.
I'm mortal, I'll die anyway. But there is also my family and my people, from which I am descended.
Scientifically speaking, humans are social animals, and our behavior is determined by evolution, not choice. Those who were too selfish left fewer offspring.
you need to understand how any motivation works
the brain is constantly modeling reality, including future scenarios
and compares the models
the model that promises to stimulate the pleasure center more and longer and at the same time stimulate the pain center as little as possible wins
these predictions may be wrong, but at the time of making a decision, the brain uses all the information available to it, including the emotional state.
and so, take, for example, the feat of Alexander Matrosov, who blocked the embrasure
most likely, he imagined an image of the future in which he did not perform the feat.
in this future, all his comrades died, his military unit was thrown back, and he himself, for example, was captured and forced to work for the Germans in captivity with the memory of his cowardice, with the memory of his fallen comrades
and in another picture, he himself died, but his comrades survived
in fact, two virtual pictures were compared, but they are real for the brain and the second picture gave more reinforcement than the first, because the pain center from the first promised to be stimulated for life and life seemed meaningless
and so the decision was made
of course, I only assume that it was so, but most likely it was:)
There is such a thing as altruism. Literally, �selfless help to others. Many atheists are much more altruistic than religious people. Personally, I am willing to sacrifice myself if it will save others.
And more. The question wasn't posed correctly. Why don't atheists sacrifice themselves for others? “Don't they think of atheists as 'immoral' people? Nonsense.
Yes. I would donate.All the same, life without a loved one is empty. And it is unlikely that anything will change over the years, judging by the reviews of those who lost their dearest people.
Absolutely not. I definitely wouldn't die for a stranger or even a friend, but only if I had a very close friend, but I don't have any.
Probably not. Maybe only if I was convinced that I couldn't live with the knowledge that I didn't save someone (for example, the same situation with a child). But in this case, I would be pressured by my own moral framework, that is, the choice of death would still be an act of selfishness.
The ability to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of other members of one's group is a characteristic of many social animals, from ants to baboons. All of them are not religious. Man is a social animal with a corresponding set of innate behavioral programs that are equally inherent in both believers, atheists and agnostics.
Perhaps in a desperate situation, if my death is a guarantee of my child's life, I will die voluntarily. But what does atheism have to do with it? Or are you implying that religious fanatics die for their faith, and not for the lives of others-after all, no one disputes this, although it is a subtle question, perhaps fanatics die for the promised reward “in heaven”, and not for faith at all.