The Evil Self-Sacrifice Paradigm

I think most people are not likely accustomed to seeing the terms "evil" and "self-sacrifice" in the same sentence much less in the same title, so I would like to say first that I do not put the two terms together lightly. That is I have strong reasons for using the two terms together and the point of this post is to explain that.

We are generally taught that self-sacrifice is a good thing. It is generally considered to be a standard of morality and an underlying basis of moral and ethical thought. The trouble is that sacrificing a person regardless of whether or not that person is yourself cannot be a stand alone good thing. That is to say that if it is ever a good thing it would take a unique context, and unique reasons for it to be so.

If I were to sacrifice another human for my own benefit for example most people would see that as inherently evil particularly without some context that could lend it some other meaning. If that situation were killing someone who was an imminent risk and explicit threat to my family we would not necessarily define the action as "evil." In fact most people would probably not call it "sacrifice."

Sacrifice is supposed to be a term with religious and/or sacred undertones. In the context of killing we generally mean it refer to some sort of ritualized and/or religious ceremony with the ultimate goal of bringing some believed benefit to the greater community. Human sacrifice is thus something we generally see as archaic. The idea of sacrificing a member of our community or family (perhaps even an enemy) to honor some perceived deity is something we now view as barbaric and superstitious.

So why does the word "sacrifice" become a perceived good or virtue when applied to the self? If we are still discussing sacrifice at the level of killing we would thus be talking about suicide. Is it good to commit suicide for the benefit of a community, society, or even our family? Certainly we can all develop situations and contexts in which it might make some sense, but the bigger the perceived beneficiary population the more the act starts to blend into the realm of ritual human sacrifice.

For example if you sacrifice yourself because you believe it will save your town from dying from a disease how is this different from those who would sacrifice themselves because they believed their death would insure a good harvest for their community. These people believe they would be saving others in their community from the starvation that would occur after a poor harvest.

Perhaps it is because our understanding of disease is better founded than our ancestors understanding of how plants grow, but might future generations look at this as a needless death brought on by ignorance?

My main point is that what we generally call self sacrifice is the things we do for the benefit of our loved ones and family at some cost to ourselves. I submit that these things are not in reality "self sacrifice" but are actually prioritizing our needs and wants in such a way as to benefit those other people we value the most. That might be our friends, family, or neighbors. If I decided to stop pursuing some cherished hobby, so that I might spend more time with my children for example, I could potentially call that a "sacrifice."

But if I would rather spend time with my children than pursue said hobby then it isn't really a "sacrifice" at all. In reality the only reason to phrase it as such is due to the perceived virtue of the term "self-sacrifice." But if that term does not always create good results why use it at all.

Imagine instead someone who "sacrificed" a loved hobby to benefit their children because they believed "self-sacrifice" was virtuous, however they did not feel love or affection toward their children. In the end this act of "sacrifice" would not add to that which they valued but instead create resentment in the person. I'm not saying they should not take the action, merely that if the action was unnecessary it cannot be made a morally good action simply be it being an act of sacrifice. Instead the action would be detrimental to the person making the sacrifice and create undeserved negative emotions in the person towards their children.

If someone were constantly mean to you, called you horrible names, never listened, couldn't be bothered to help when you were in trouble, wouldn't even listen without verbally smacking you down etc., would it matter to you how many "sacrifices they had made" on your behalf?

Having lived with several such people, I object to the term "self sacrifice." Sacrifice is not a virtue in and of itself and I believe the times when it could be considered a virtue are times when it would be better described as some other quality. When I am generous I do so when I see a benefit to myself and/or my family and/or my community. I do so with self-interest and only when I understand what the gain is and truly believe that that gain will ultimately be achieved.

I do not give just to give. I do not sacrifice just to sacrifice. There are too many organizations and people out there that exist just to be the recipients of other's perceived need to "give back" or to be "altruistic."

Why for example would anyone donate to a charity that pays their top administrator 900,000 dollars per year? Surely a more thorough search would reveal someone with the same talents who would work for a fraction of that price.

Why would anyone donate to a charity that spent 60% or more of their donations on administration and organizing more fundraising events? Surely a little more work on streamlining and efficiency would yield a more cost effective means to run the organization.

The "why" is because we give blindly. We believe altruism is good, so all we have to do is donate. Then we can describe ourselves as "givers" or "altruists." We have done our part and who can complain if it was to a poorly run charity?

I say that "I give" because I believe there is value in helping those who have been struck by natural disaster or disease. The value comes not only from the valuation I have for my fellow human beings, but also because I want people to be generous with me when my family and community face a disaster. As such I consider it unconscionable for my donated money to be eaten up by administrative costs, or for it to be used to pay some big name administrator.

When I choose between my various options and decide to do what would most benefit my family, even though there may have been some option more beneficial to me exclusively. I do so because I value my family, and not because I value sacrifice or perceive sacrifice to be a good. My family is an important part of my world, my identity, and ultimately my values. They are as much a part of my self as my body is, so why would I call it self sacrifice to choose to benefit them over the immediate needs/wants of my own person?

As such I do not see the point of using the terms "altruism" or "self-sacrifice." They seem to be terms bandied about by people who do not value those they are giving to, but have adopted the belief that giving is somehow a self-justifying action. I have however seen the evil created by those who used these terms without understanding them or with the goal of solidifying power and controlling those beneath them.