If you don't love someone why die for them?

[Crow]

Are you asking "why people do this thing?" or "why should people do this thing?"

Let me give you one of the more banal answers to the first question: money. That is, there is a compensation for the risk you take to help others, and the risk is low enough to make it worth a shot (or, a person might just suck at assessing the risk). However, sometimes the risks get realizes, and instead of getting a fat wad of dough, you end up dying for a person you never cared about deeply.

Which is basically what I said.

Most of the people saving lives all over the country on a daily basis do it for this reason when it comes down to it.

[2D8HP]

..Most of the people saving lives all over the country on a daily basis do it for this reason when it comes down to it....

As do most who risk their lives without saving anyone.

I went to an Apprenticeshio with a guy who can no longer walk because of his job, and I worked a job with another who lost both his arms, and I've I've known nine men who died in traffic, I suspect the majority of accidental deaths in the U.S.A. are people driving to and from their jobs.

[ve4grm]

My dad is a (now retired) fire fighter.

While money certainly played into it, I think I can give as bit more insight than that, when it comes to those who do this professionally.

Fire fighters rush into burning buildings because they have a higher chance of survival than those inside. They have the heavy coats, breathing apparatus, and other protective gear that means that with them in the building, the original victim has such a significantly increased chance of survival that it justifies the extra risk statistically.

Essentially, for every firefighter that dies on the job, hundreds of civilian lives are saved.

The same math works for police, military, etc.

But the kicker of it all is that most of these professionals would rush in to save others anyways. Even without the pay and safety gear (albeit less willingly than with the gear). I know my dad would. And I think that comes down to the "community" answer from someone else. Succeeding benefits the community as a whole, and may be worth the risk.

It's definitely not a mindset everyone has. Or needs. But it's useful to have around, when used with care.

[paddyfool]

As do most who risk their lives without saving anyone.

I went to an Apprenticeshio with a guy who can no longer walk because of his job, and I worked a job with another who lost both his arms, and I've I've known nine men who died in traffic, I suspect the majority of accidental deaths in the U.S.A. are people driving to and from their jobs.

Road traffic deaths (including all categories of road users - drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc) are certainly one of the biggest causes of accidental deaths in the USA, alongside falls and accidental poisoning. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

Also, they may be on the rise after years of falling, with 2016 having the worst rate of them since 2007 (40,000 people). http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/

How much of that is "guys driving to work" is anybody's guess, but standard advice applies - don't drink and drive, don"t text amd drive, don't drive while overtired, buckle up etc.

[factotum]

How much of that is "guys driving to work" is anybody's guess

Logic states that "guys driving to work" being the time when most traffic is on the roads (assuming regular working day, of course), it will also be the time when most accidents happen.

[Grek]

If you do not wish to live, it becomes easy to die for another.

[Frozen_Feet]

Oh yeah, another thing which can make people do this (though questionable if it's the reason you should do this):

Anger and hatred.

Basically, you see someone kicking another person when they're down, and you just want to beat up that bastard. No big feeling is ever had towards the original victim. It's just a license, or an excuse, to get in a fight. And, predictably, sometimes someone gets in over their head, falls down, hits their head on the pavement and dies.

[Jay R]

Better than the two ending up dead anyway.

I have seen it countless times in floods someone tries to be the hero and save the other person, dies and is unable to save them. That's very common, tragic and pointless.

No, it's not pointless. Because when I dive into the water, or enter the burning building, I don't know what's going to happen. If 60% of the time, I would save somebody and escape, and 40% of the time I would fail and die, that's a net gain. Similarly, if I have a 10% chance of saving 20 people, and a 90% chance of failing and dying, that's still a net gain for humanity.

This is similar to the logic that if I have a 1 chance in 5 of drawing to the flush, and will win eight times as much as I have to bet if I make the flush, that's a good bet, even though I'll lose it 80% of the time.

But counting bodies misses the point. I would rather try and possibly fail than stand and watch somebody die through my inaction.

Yes, it's even more convincing if it's somebody I love, but if it's a stranger, that won't stop me. Because the two people I'm comparing are the coward me and the hero me.

I know that both are real. And I know that I can choose which one to be at that moment.

[2D8HP]

.....counting bodies misses the point. I would rather try and possibly fail than stand and watch somebody die through my inaction.

Yes, it's even more convincing if it's somebody I love, but if it's a stranger, that won't stop me. Because the two people I'm comparing are the coward me and the hero me......

That's natural and even admirable, but every year I'm required to attend "Confined Space" training where we're taught to only attempt rescue by retracting their harness and never to enter the space ourselves to try and save our comrades lest another man die of asphyxiation, besides our comrade.

This year the example was of some county in Florida where multiple Fireman went and died, one after another, first to try two sewer pipe repair contractors, then their fallen comrades (because they had inadequate training and didn't wear supplied air).

A decade and a half ago I worked for a company that two employees in Texas (also trying to repair a pipe) die because of oxygen displacement (for some reason most of the cautionary tales in my training come from Florida and Texas, I suppose the guys there are less trained and/or more heroic than we in California, but I did hear one example of a guy in California who died while cleaning out the leaves of a dry swimming pool, because of the methane the leaves produced).

[Frozen_Feet]

@Jay R: You could've just quoted Robert A. Heinlein. Or, to paraphrase, "attempts to save people are moral even if they fail".

@2D8HP: oh yes, confined places and oxygen displacement. Fun stuff.

I'd say the point in those specific scenarios is that we know going after the unconscious person will fail. Like, there's no real question of whether you'll succeed - we know you won't. Risks are one thing, certainties are another.

[Jay R]

That's natural and even admirable, but every year I'm required to attend "Confined Space" training where we're taught to only attempt rescue by retracting their harness and never to enter the space ourselves to try and save our comrades lest another man die of asphyxiation, besides our comrade.

Yes, of course. I might take risks, but I would never simply die to attempt the impossible. "Secure your own mask first" is not just for airplanes.

Having said that, I've actually been in that position only once. I actually ran into a burning building to help carry a stranger on crutches downstairs and out. [Not much danger for me. The fire was on the other side. Something unusual would have had to happen for me to get caught in it.]

And no thought posted on this thread went through my mind during the entire episode.

[Florian]

The topic got me thinking. My country used to have a conscription-based citizen army, based on location, I´ve been FlaRak (Patriot system) and cross-trained Field Medic, because us Munich boys had the choice between that, MP or Mountain Rangers (which is actually a pretty tough and prestigious affair I shied away from, even when ranked at T1).

Bosnia happened during my tour of duty, the U.S. handling the No-Fly-Zone, so I had that stupid blue helmed, standard issue BW pistol and rifle along with a medkit and a com unit. We were young and reasonably well trained (and motivated), so we actually took the duty of protecting the civilians quite seriously and would have died for them, as were the trained soldiers and they're the civilians.

[AMFV]

There's a line somewhere that the greatest of all loves is that which will die for another person. Perhaps this has applied to beloved pets as well. However, what if one has no love for the person menaced with death? Why should one spend all of one's remaining life saving another person, when there is no love for that person in the rescuer's heart?

Well there are a lot of reasons why somebody might sacrifice themselves. I would say that personally "love" in this case can include much broader definitions than simply love as in what one feels for a family member.

[Donnadogsoth]

Well there are a lot of reasons why somebody might sacrifice themselves. I would say that personally "love" in this case can include much broader definitions than simply love as in what one feels for a family member.

Hmm. I wonder if this is the final analysis. Suppose we narrow the criteria, such as (A) taking a complete stranger's (B's) place for an execution. This would be a completely premeditated act, and give no honour, money, or any other advantage to the actor in question. In that case it seems like, and maybe I've just narrowed the goalposts so far as to admit nothing else, that the only answer for such a substitute death would be the placing of a transcendent value on B, and so A must love B, love being founded on an emotion which can become a habit of mind and action. The only alternative to this seems to be outright insanity, though A may be viewed as insane for such an action. Thoughts?

[Manga Shoggoth]

Hmm. I wonder if this is the final analysis. Suppose we narrow the criteria, such as (A) taking a complete stranger's (B's) place for an execution. This would be a completely premeditated act, and give no honour, money, or any other advantage to the actor in question. In that case it seems like, and maybe I've just narrowed the goalposts so far as to admit nothing else, that the only answer for such a substitute death would be the placing of a transcendent value on B, and so A must love B, love being founded on an emotion which can become a habit of mind and action. The only alternative to this seems to be outright insanity, though A may be viewed as insane for such an action. Thoughts?

Father Kolbe? Took the place of another man in Auschwitz. I believe there were other cases, but he's the first to come to mind.

(Have I just Godwined the thread?)

[Frozen_Feet]

No. You can't Godwin a thread when discussions of Nazis is topical, and when looking for examples of people who took another's place in an execution, Nazis are topical insofar as they executed a whole lot of people.

[Florian]

Hmm. I wonder if this is the final analysis. Suppose we narrow the criteria, such as (A) taking a complete stranger's (B's) place for an execution. This would be a completely premeditated act, and give no honour, money, or any other advantage to the actor in question. In that case it seems like, and maybe I've just narrowed the goalposts so far as to admit nothing else, that the only answer for such a substitute death would be the placing of a transcendent value on B, and so A must love B, love being founded on an emotion which can become a habit of mind and action. The only alternative to this seems to be outright insanity, though A may be viewed as insane for such an action. Thoughts?

You´re still working with the assumption that there has to be a relation between A and B, so the act in and by itself either has to bring some form of "gain" or would be counted as "insane". That makes your analysis plain and simple wrong. Morals, faith and conviction are often all it takes for someone to become a martyr, maybe summed up as accepting that there's way more out there than just small you.

[Frozen_Feet]

Or to put it simpler, A only has to place transcendent value on something, not necessarily B.

[Kyberwulf]

Honor, respect? It doesn't mean you have to have any value on the person dying. It could be that you value yourself and the ideals for which you stand. Principle I think it's called.

[Frozen_Feet]

Principle I think it's called.

Ohoho. Do I smell something burning?

[Scarlet Knight]

Did we just come to a peaceful, sensible agreement? On the internet?

Another miracle for Saint Maximilian Kolbe.

[Lacuna Caster]

S@tanicoaldo, has some statistics to back her up:

Don’t Be a Dead Hero: In some disasters, more rescuers die than original victims

Interesting article, so thanks for that. I guess people are more likely to be stupid than callous?

No, it's not pointless. Because when I dive into the water, or enter the burning building, I don't know what's going to happen. If 60% of the time, I would save somebody and escape, and 40% of the time I would fail and die, that's a net gain. Similarly, if I have a 10% chance of saving 20 people, and a 90% chance of failing and dying, that's still a net gain for humanity...

..I know that both are real. And I know that I can choose which one to be at that moment.

If you're interested in cost/benefit tradeoffs toward saving lives, you can do so comparatively cheaply by donating to various evidence-based charities. A rough estimate is that every 500-1000$ spent on mosquito netting statistically saves one life, for example, and other forms of spending can have a marked impact on overall quality of life.

[Florian]

Interesting article, so thanks for that. I guess people are more likely to be stupid than callous?

It´s a very "U.S."-centric article, tho. While yes, modern societies tend to outsource handling danger, so most of the time a prudent private person can´t actually make a correct assessment of the risks of a situation, a lot will depend on whether society as a whole deems it to be important to teach people how to handle those situations and work in concert with professional rescue workers.

I already mentioned that my country used to enforce conscription. You could either go for the army, health care system or rescue service. Beyond that, you can´t get a drivers license without getting basic emergency response training and you can´t get into certain fields of work without getting the job-specific hazard training. Even with conscription on temporary hold, undergoing the training and working in the field will place you higher on the waiting list for universities by giving additional credits.
So chances are good that (young) people actually have experience as a volunteer firefighter, THW or emergency rescue.

[Vinyadan]

That's natural and even admirable, but every year I'm required to attend "Confined Space" training where we're taught to only attempt rescue by retracting their harness and never to enter the space ourselves to try and save our comrades lest another man die of asphyxiation, besides our comrade.

This year the example was of some county in Florida where multiple Fireman went and died, one after another, first to try two sewer pipe repair contractors, then their fallen comrades (because they had inadequate training and didn't wear supplied air).

A decade and a half ago I worked for a company that two employees in Texas (also trying to repair a pipe) die because of oxygen displacement (for some reason most of the cautionary tales in my training come from Florida and Texas, I suppose the guys there are less trained and/or more heroic than we in California, but I did hear one example of a guy in California who died while cleaning out the leaves of a dry swimming pool, because of the methane the leaves produced).

Some time ago, a whole family of farmers was wiped out that way. The man fell into the dung pool, he fainted, his mother went to help him, she fainted too, and then the father also fainted, and they all died from suffocation.

[Donnadogsoth]

You´re still working with the assumption that there has to be a relation between A and B, so the act in and by itself either has to bring some form of "gain" or would be counted as "insane". That makes your analysis plain and simple wrong. Morals, faith and conviction are often all it takes for someone to become a martyr, maybe summed up as accepting that there's way more out there than just small you.

The morals, faith and conviction have to be based on some kind of emotion. No one "just does things" without some kind of emotional undergirding, even if such is unconscious relating to one's childhood. For A to so sacrifice themselves for B out of morals, faith and conviction, those things must have an emotional core, and I don't see how anyone could commit such an act, as described, without having love at that core. B may well be serving as a placeholder for the convictions, but the convictions exist for the sake of a placeholder, even one A doesn't even know the name of .

[2D8HP]

Interesting article, so thanks for that. I guess people are more likely to be stupid than callous?[....]

I don't think it's "stupid" (though that's part of it) so much as while they're sociopaths among us, for most people being self-sacrificing and altruistic towards others in their "tribe" is the normal human response.

I know that without my training, if I see a co-worker fall (while they're doing the periodic boiler de-scaling for example), my instinctive response is to go to them, not to worry about my own safety in that moment, I had to be taught to not attempt rescue.

Similarly to actively do the worst evils towards others, most have to be taught to demonize others as "not in the tribe".

How far to extend most humans natural altruism (is one's "tribe" your immediate family, your neighborhood, your nation, your sect, humanity, etc cetera) is something that is taught as well.

And yes a degree of selfishness is normal and natural as well, but so is a degree of altruism, which may be call "charity", "solidarity", or yes "love".

I can think of a certain nation that in a time if general prosperity started to extend the rights of citizenship to a segment of its population that previoudly wasn't thought of by the majority as "in the tribe", and I can think of other times of scarcity and trauma when societies divide themselves into "us and them", but even during those bad times remarkable altruism and heroism is shown by some.

People can be complex, but a lot of it is folks following the examples of those around them, while they're exceptions (saints and sociopaths) most imitate the actions of those around them, if they see heroism as the norm they'll be heroes, if they see cowardice as the norm they'll be cowards.

Monkey see, monkey do, especially (in humans) in what they learn from 0 to 5 (when folks are most moveable), and from 15 to 25 years old (when memories are the strongest).

[The Eye]

There are many kinds of love, what kind of love are talking about? The greeks had like four or five worlds for love.

[Scarlet Knight]

It's your thread; tell us which loves are ok to die for and which of the 5 you think aren't.

@v Sonnava... you're right; sorry 'bout that.

[2D8HP]

It's your thread; tell us which loves are ok to die for and which of the 5 you think aren't.

You may be confusing @The Eye with @Donnadogsoth, and the "death" thread wirh the "die" thread.

[Themrys]

I don't get why people treat dying so that someone else can live as something so very special.

The Harry Potter books state, again and again and again, how very brave and special Lily Potter was to sacrifice herself for her son.

What they neglect to mention is that every woman willingly risks her life so that a child can live when she willingly gets pregnant. Doubly so in third world countries. Pregnancy and birth are effing dangerous, and every adult woman knows that. Even the most coddled among us have read at least three novels where the hero's mother died in childbirth.

If we count willingness to risk one's life for a child instead of actual death, then Molly Prewett, married Weasley, mother of seven, is the greater hero.



As has already been said by others, most of those who die so that someone else can live aren't making a conscious decision to actually die. They only decide to take a risk.

Even incredibly brave people like, say, Sophie Scholl, probably had some hope of getting away with resisting the nazis, although they knew they'd more likely than not be caught eventually.


And except for mothers who sacrifice themselves so that their unborn children may live, I don't actually think most of the instances where someone dies for someone else are motivated by love towards a person.


If you asked me who'd be more likely to sacrifice himself for me, a man in love with me, or someone who just has principles and for some reason deems my life worth saving ... I'd always bet on the latter.
Romantic love is pretty cheap, all things considered.