What actually is a "sacrifice"?
Images pop in one's mind. A ritual offering to a tribal deity, a slain ox, even a virgin bound with tethers and killed to appease an island volcano......
Is a sacrifice giving up a GREATER value to gain a LESSER value? Or, is a sacrifice giving up a LESSER value to gain a GREATER value?
Usually, when we collectively consider what a sacrifice is we think of a particular person giving up something very dear to them (taking a loss personally) in order for the group they belong to to achieve a greater benefit as a whole.
Dying for one's country, for example, means just that; an individual defends the nation as a whole within an army and the loss of that particular life is toward achieving a goal considered worthwhile. It is considered a small (though poignant and lamentable) loss with a larger benefit to a greater number who gain something worth the trade.
Isn't this logical? In a cost/benefit analysis could it be any other way?
If you were trapped in a cabin in the Pacific Northwest by a violent snowstorm wouldn't you use your valuable antique furniture as firewood rather than freeze to death? Wouldn't you devour the family dog rather than starve?
The scenarios are endless. Countless situations have sprung up throughout history with horrifying consequences when viewed from afar. The Donner Party is such a case where snowbound sojourners ended up eating each other rather than starve.
But, these are extremes. What about in everyday life? Isn't self-sacrifice a daily trade-off? A parent gives up sleep to attend to a sick child. A man donates part of his earnings to a worthwhile cause. A family volunteers to help out the less fortunate in a disaster.
So, is SELF-SACRIFICE a GOOD thing?
I assert that the answer is not global or universal, but; situationally determined.
When you sacrifice your SELF it is a momentous decision when it is life or death. Otherwise, it is merely a trade off of values in goods and services.
Your life is the most you have or will ever have. To end it for any reason is the greatest decision we can make.
If any other alternative were possible it would be outrageous to even contemplate.
Yet, in our contemporary society self-sacrifice is considered noble automatically.
We do our DUTY and that is the highest value.
But, is it?
Why is the OTHER person's life more valuable that YOURs?
If we all die for each other aren't we all dead in the end? What is the logic in that?
No, you'll find the game is rigged. The deck is stacked. In a society or group or tribe the balance is tilted in favor of an ELITE who ask/cajole/indoctrinate/command the personal sacrifice of the non-elite.
There is always a means of choosing a VICTIM. Recruitment begins at birth with stories of heroes and martyrs.
The victim is given praise, naturally. Yet, the victim dies. The family is patted on the back and tears are awarded their loss. But, the loss is permanent.
Among Jehovah's Witnesses self-sacrifice is a price everybody is expected to make. But, the elite at the top are holding the strings.
Being the one "serving" and "slaving" for the group is the task of the underlings. The greater the sacrifice; the greater the pat on the head.
Where should the line be drawn between what is required by the group of the individual? When does the group as a whole become the sacrifice? How do we determine when the price being paid is an outrageous one?
This is the decision which is the dirty little secret of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If a child is molested a family may have to sacrifice justice by remaining quiet.
If a child is dying and needs blood the family may have to allow them to die.
The life/death sacrifice hovers in the air or dangles like a sword.
When is the price an outrageous over-payment?
What do YOU say?