Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, my friend and I come from pretty religious families (both Christian), and we were having a discussion last night about suicide vs self sacrifice. Now, the background for this was the idea of somebody contracting a fatal disease with a VERY high communicability rate, and the only way to keep it from spreading is through self-eradication. A perfect example would be either the fictional zombie scenario, or for those who have read/seen it: Captain Tripps from The Stand. In these cases, the disease will definitely kill you, but it will also take many others along with you. Now, this is mostly designed towards those who believe in a higher power, as those of us who believe in God generally believe suicide to be a hell-worthy trespass. Is it suicide or is it self sacrifice to keep yourself from uncontrollably harming others? Discuss. I realize those who don't believe in any form of God will chime in as well, but I definitely want to hear from the religious among us. I personally believe it falls under the act of self-sacrifice, as it is done to protect others.

You've answered your own question, you kill yourself to stop others from becoming infected therefore it is a selfless act of sacrifice done to save others.

Its kind of a contrived situation TBH. I would say that in a situation like that the worst thing you can do is kill yourself. As patient zero you could possibly the best hope for a cure to others. You would be best keeping away from others, alerting the authorities and letting them quarantine you.

Self eradication would not stem the problem, but make it worse.

I'd have to sacrifice myself. By drowning myself. At the water treatment plant. Because I'm a selfless giver and a jerk.

Too many times (as outlined above) terminal sacrifice is usually a case of not considering ALL your options.

The true sin is a meaningless death with full knowledge you would most likely die in the attempt. It also smacks of an unhealthy lack of self worth.

Put suicide under the same category of murder: was it premeditated? I am unsure how "manslaughter" (accidental death due to your actions) is viewed at the golden gates. Good question for your priest I think.

 Talizvar wrote:


Put suicide under the same category of murder: was it premeditated?

It's 1st degree murder and if I was on your jury, I'd give you the chair for killing yourself.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its kind of a contrived situation TBH. I would say that in a situation like that the worst thing you can do is kill yourself. As patient zero you could possibly the best hope for a cure to others. You would be best keeping away from others, alerting the authorities and letting them quarantine you.

Self eradication would not stem the problem, but make it worse.

This.

As much as I understand the thought process of "self sacrifice" to contain a virus, I'll agree that it's not the best idea. Plus, doesn't God gave a plan for everyone? Going against the rules and killing yourself probably will go against what He has planned for the future.

Even if you didn't want to help out by volunteering to be a CDC experiment, you could quarantine yourself and wait to die naturally. Be a super nice guy and post warnings outside the quarantine perimeter before you secure yourself inside.

There are ways to handle it without capping yourself or spreading the disease.

I don't really see any problem with suicide. The Right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness stops being a right when you lose the ability to waive it.

No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame--for one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.

 mega_bassist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its kind of a contrived situation TBH. I would say that in a situation like that the worst thing you can do is kill yourself. As patient zero you could possibly the best hope for a cure to others. You would be best keeping away from others, alerting the authorities and letting them quarantine you.

Self eradication would not stem the problem, but make it worse.

This.

As much as I understand the thought process of "self sacrifice" to contain a virus, I'll agree that it's not the best idea. Plus, doesn't God gave a plan for everyone? Going against the rules and killing yourself probably will go against what He has planned for the future.

I was actually thinking this same thing as I typed it, but I was also running late out the door for a date. Figured the date was a bit more important than adding a sentence to my post, but you are right-with the belief of God's plan, it does make the question even trickier.

I tend to get into conflict with other's ideas of "God's plan".
I like to think of it as an overall strategy and he is content with letting the details play themselves out.

To be given "free will" would be pointless to have the entire timeline, every detail of every human being pre-determined. Would add a whole new complication of owning your own sin if it was already decided for you.

It is pointless to ask for direction or strength when your character and will is tested to man-up and do the right thing. Take some ownership of your actions and be judged on that.

Its not that it was decided. God just knows what you are going to do.

He doesn't force you to do anything, he just knows what choice you will make.

I would like to think I would make the ultimate sacrifice if required. There are a few things I can think of where I would give my life to protect/save/achieve.

There are also a number of cases I can think of where I would probably take my own life, such as if I contracted various illnesses, disabilities/etc.

Since I have yet to see any proof for the existance of god, heaven, hell or any kind of afterlife I don't have any problem with differentiating between suicide and sacrifice. You end up just as dead either way. All that is different is what you achieve and what you leave behind.

Suicide and dying to save others are polar opposites. Suicide is inherently a selfish act, but no one who's jumped on a grenade for his squad mates, or dived in a raging river to rescue a child has been thinking about him or herself at the time. It's all about your mind set. The ultimate sacrifice of self, risking life and limb, and trading both so that others might live is a noble act in it's simple willingness to put other lives before your own without so much as a second thought.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So, my friend and I come from pretty religious families (both Christian), and we were having a discussion last night about suicide vs self sacrifice. Now, the background for this was the idea of somebody contracting a fatal disease with a VERY high communicability rate, and the only way to keep it from spreading is through self-eradication. A perfect example would be either the fictional zombie scenario, or for those who have read/seen it: Captain Tripps from The Stand. In these cases, the disease will definitely kill you, but it will also take many others along with you. Now, this is mostly designed towards those who believe in a higher power, as those of us who believe in God generally believe suicide to be a hell-worthy trespass. Is it suicide or is it self sacrifice to keep yourself from uncontrollably harming others? Discuss. I realize those who don't believe in any form of God will chime in as well, but I definitely want to hear from the religious among us. I personally believe it falls under the act of self-sacrifice, as it is done to protect others.

You forgot Option C: Infect as many people as possible.
If I am going down, and taking everybody else with me.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Suicide is inherently a selfish act

Not always. I wouldn't want to live on in a condition that meant others had to be significantly inconvenienced to simply keep me alive. Sure, it is the "easy way out" rather than "living" with your condition, but it can also spare others a lot of pain and heartache as well.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Suicide is inherently a selfish act

Not always. I wouldn't want to live on in a condition that meant others had to be significantly inconvenienced to simply keep me alive. Sure, it is the "easy way out" rather than "living" with your condition, but it can also spare others a lot of pain and heartache as well.

Indeed.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Suicide is inherently a selfish act

Not always. I wouldn't want to live on in a condition that meant others had to be significantly inconvenienced to simply keep me alive. Sure, it is the "easy way out" rather than "living" with your condition, but it can also spare others a lot of pain and heartache as well.

Fair point, I stand corrected on that

And this is one of many reasons (aside from the obvious "because it's true") why atheism is a good thing: it very nicely simplifies all these moral "dilemmas". If you remove the TFG rules lawyer* in the sky that cares more about whether or not you obeyed the rule than the consequences of your decision it becomes very simple:

Suicide is wrong because of the "permanent solution to a temporary problem" cliche. It causes a lot of pain to the people who care about you, and in hindsight you'll probably be glad someone stopped you from doing it.

Self-sacrifice is obviously a different case because it's no longer a pointless death. It's a tragic loss, but it's easy to look at the consequences and say that one person dying is better than the alternative. And that's especially true in this case where the person making the sacrifice is going to die soon anyway.

The only way you can get any kind of "dilemma" about this is by assuming the existence of an arbitrary tyrant that will torture you for eternity if you die by your own hand instead of dying in a much more horrible way a bit later while dooming countless others to a similar fate. You have to make the mechanism of death infinitely more important than the consequences of that life or death decision, and that just doesn't make any sense.


*God probably loves to play RAW about things like "you have to draw LOS from a model's eyes, so anyone wearing a helmet can't shoot".

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I was actually thinking this same thing as I typed it, but I was also running late out the door for a date. Figured the date was a bit more important than adding a sentence to my post, but you are right-with the belief of God's plan, it does make the question even trickier.

It doesn't make it trickier at all. You have one of two ways to interpret "god's plan":

1) God is an omnipotent omniscient being, so the concept of defying god's plan just doesn't make any sense. No matter what you do you are acting according to god's plan, because you have no power to oppose that plan.

or

2) God has a hopeful plan for you but doesn't enforce it. However, since god doesn't usually come down from heaven and give you personal instructions on what he wants you to do there is no way of knowing what god's plan for you is. You could defy that plan, but it's pointless to even think about the possibility because no matter what you choose it's equally likely that god wanted you to do the opposite. Literally any choice of action is equally in line with "god's plan" as far as you know.

Either way "god's plan" adds absolutely nothing to your decision.

 Peregrine wrote:
And this is one of many reasons (aside from the obvious "because it's true") why atheism is a good thing: it very nicely simplifies all these moral "dilemmas". If you remove the TFG rules lawyer* in the sky that cares more about whether or not you obeyed the rule than the consequences of your decision it becomes very simple:

Suicide is wrong because of the "permanent solution to a temporary problem" cliche. It causes a lot of pain to the people who care about you, and in hindsight you'll probably be glad someone stopped you from doing it.

Self-sacrifice is obviously a different case because it's no longer a pointless death. It's a tragic loss, but it's easy to look at the consequences and say that one person dying is better than the alternative. And that's especially true in this case where the person making the sacrifice is going to die soon anyway.

The only way you can get any kind of "dilemma" about this is by assuming the existence of an arbitrary tyrant that will torture you for eternity if you die by your own hand instead of dying in a much more horrible way a bit later while dooming countless others to a similar fate. You have to make the mechanism of death infinitely more important than the consequences of that life or death decision, and that just doesn't make any sense.


*God probably loves to play RAW about things like "you have to draw LOS from a model's eyes, so anyone wearing a helmet can't shoot".

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I was actually thinking this same thing as I typed it, but I was also running late out the door for a date. Figured the date was a bit more important than adding a sentence to my post, but you are right-with the belief of God's plan, it does make the question even trickier.

It doesn't make it trickier at all. You have one of two ways to interpret "god's plan":

1) God is an omnipotent omniscient being, so the concept of defying god's plan just doesn't make any sense. No matter what you do you are acting according to god's plan, because you have no power to oppose that plan.

or

2) God has a hopeful plan for you but doesn't enforce it. However, since god doesn't usually come down from heaven and give you personal instructions on what he wants you to do there is no way of knowing what god's plan for you is. You could defy that plan, but it's pointless to even think about the possibility because no matter what you choose it's equally likely that god wanted you to do the opposite. Literally any choice of action is equally in line with "god's plan" as far as you know.

Either way "god's plan" adds absolutely nothing to your decision.

Well I'll be damned. Exalted.

Zond wrote:
No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame--for one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.

This sort of thing right here.... Sacrificing myself so that one of my soldiers or brothers might live, in a live or die situation is perfectly excusable. Killing yourself because you didn't wrap it and contracted uber-syphillis is the cheap way out.

Does the man who dives on a grenade to save his fellow Soldiers committing suicide?

I'd say anyone who says so should get punched in the neck. Twice.

This thread needs some tunes.




Exalts to Peregrine and Djones.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This thread needs some tunes.




Exalts to Peregrine and Djones.

Throw another one my way. Made E-6 today.

 djones520 wrote:
Does the man who dives on a grenade to save his fellow Soldiers committing suicide?

I'd say anyone who says so should get punched in the neck. Twice.

Depends. If he does so reflexively, then no. If he has the time to make a split-second deliberation about it, then it's perfectly acceptable to call it a suicide. And a sacrifice. Both are not exclusive.

Depends. If he does so reflexively, then no. If he has the time to make a split-second deliberation about it, then it's perfectly acceptable to call it a suicide. And a sacrifice. Both are not exclusive.

No one knows how much time is left on the fuse once a frag is thrown. You do not know if the thrower held it for couple more seconds to get a airburst or pulled the pin and threw it. Depends on your Situational Awareness

 Jihadin wrote:

Depends. If he does so reflexively, then no. If he has the time to make a split-second deliberation about it, then it's perfectly acceptable to call it a suicide. And a sacrifice. Both are not exclusive.

No one knows how much time is left on the fuse once a frag is thrown. You do not know if the thrower held it for couple more seconds to get a airburst or pulled the pin and threw it. Depends on your Situational Awareness

The only thing that matters in the case of a suicide is weither or not the action who ended up costing the suicide's life was deliberate or not. If you sacrifice yourself to save a thousand, and did so willingly and knowingly (and it would be weird to talk of self-sacrifice otherwise) then you also committed suicide.

I'll be waiting for those promised punches, djones.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Does the man who dives on a grenade to save his fellow Soldiers committing suicide?

I'd say anyone who says so should get punched in the neck. Twice.

Depends. If he does so reflexively, then no. If he has the time to make a split-second deliberation about it, then it's perfectly acceptable to call it a suicide. And a sacrifice. Both are not exclusive.

So Ross McGinnis, who was a gunner in Iraq, saw a grenade thrown through his hatch into the truck, and had enough time to yell to the guys in his truck to get out, then pin the grenade between the radio and himself committed suicide.......


Nice to know where people stand on these sorts of things.

Thou shall not kill!

So you always goto hell period!