As we entered the class, Mr. Crotty asked us a strange question: “What would you die for?” After I listed everything I think I would die for, I found myself questioning what I wrote down. On my list were my family, friends, America, Judaism, and Israel, but was all of this true? It occurs to me that there are natural things to place above one’s life, but there are some concepts and ideas that only few but above themselves.
Probably the most common thing a person would die for is a family member, primarily a parent for a child. However, I found myself questioning whether I would die for my friends. Ultimately, I realized while I would not be eager to fight and die for my friends, I would feel somewhat obligated to. Essentially, the new question is not what would I die for, but “What would I not let die.” While they sound similar, they have completely different answers. It would torture me forever if I let a friend die when I could have saved him or her. In reality it’s not a noble reason to sacrifice myself, but it is a way to escape everlasting guilt. True nobility is when a person sacrifices himself or herself for an idea or belief.
Saving family and friends at your own expense is a semi-realistic yet self-interested view, but dying for a cause is an idealistic way of thinking. As Mr. Crotty went around the room, asking what a person may die for, some answers were America, freedom, democracy, and religion. I see these answers as idealistic yet completely valid. I was one of the people who put this on my list. However, I started to question my ability to die for democracy or even for freedom. I realized that it’s nice to think I would, but when push comes to shove, I have no clue how I would act. I realized that the people who have died for a cause are martyrs. From Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr. there have been people who have died to stand for something. Ironically, their deaths lead to their immortality as martyrs. While martyrs are typically idolized, there have been those who fought for a cause that we find backwards, or even wrong. Examples of this are suicide bombers in the Middle East. While we see these people as murders, they believe they are doing something for a cause or idea all to praise God. Essentially, a Palestinian suicide bomber is very similar to the story of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and George Washington, committing treason to establish their own homeland. While I am in no way condoning a person to kill himself or herself in the name of Allah, in their communities, these men waging jihad on Israel and the US are seen as heroes, similar to our nation’s founding fathers, and while there are fundamental differences between George Washington and a suicide bomber, their desires to make the world better for their people are the same. Ultimately, a person must act with morals, caring about other lives as their own.
Finally, while this is an intriguing topic and idea, it is impossible to really know what I would die for. When confronted with extreme situations, we may react differently than we would think we would. Ultimately, I would like to believe that I would do anything to save my family and friends, but I am pessimistic I would die for a cause. Perhaps this is because I am not involved in a cause of that degree, but nevertheless, I would do anything to survive. Like US soldiers, firefighters, and policemen putting their lives in danger to make life better for others, I feel that those who would be willing to sacrifice themselves should be admired, at least for their dedication to something. They could do something I could never.
10 comments:
This made me laugh a little, in a sobering sort of way. "In reality it’s not a noble reason to sacrifice myself, but it is a way to escape everlasting guilt." i wonder how many people would agree with you if they were being totally honest? i would. it's a selfish reason, but it's also pretty valid.
i think some people would be horrified at your comparison of suicide bombers to our founding fathers, but you're not entirely off the mark. Both were willing to do anything for their beliefs; the difference, i suppose, was that death was a requirement for the suicide bombers. it was an inconvenient necessity for our founding fathers.
I can see your comparison of suicide bombers to our founding fathers as similar but I also disagree to a certain extent. Suicide bombers, as you say, are dying for a cause, Jihad, more specifically, and they believe that sacrificing themselves will somehow make the world better. The founding fathers, however, probably did not believe in sacrificing themselves for the creation of our country. I believe that they were willing to die for their beliefs if necessary but would probably not commit suicide for the betterment of their cause.
I found the comparison of the founding fathers to suicide bombers very interesting and logical. Sacrifice depends on the mindset and belief of individuals. Suicide bombers believe they are fulfilling their purpose and duty by giving up their life. Similarly, the founding father's went to drastic measures to create this country. Some people may find it difficult to perceive suicide bombers as heroes who sacrifice their lives for a cause, but this is exactly what they do. Our cultural differences do not diminish their sense of pride and accomplishment.
I think you make two good points. Americans tend to view things in a generally one-sided manner, failing to see others' points of view. Americans fail to look past the acts of terrorists into the reasons that cause them. Although support of suicide bombing would never, and should never, happen, i think many people fail to see the point that you made; their reasons are much of the same that our founding fathers had for revolution.
I completely agree with the point you made about suicide bombers waging jihad and the way that is viewed in their society. Obviously, like we believe vehemently it is an outrageous tactic, is that not similar to the concept of being a soldier. Every soldier goes in knowing he runs the risk of being killed. Because I am saying there is legitimacy to these seemingly outlandish and despicable actions, I am not agreeing with the action or promoting it. Obviously. Rather I am just saying that these people are similar to our heroes, like Mikey said, and acting as a hero in the eyes of God. If we say we would die for our religion, or even our country- then in a crazy wierd hard to admit way, suicide bombers are heroic in their despicable actions. Again, I obviously have a problem with what they are doing and disagree with it. But, we must acknowledge that what they are doing is not just crazy outrageous actions. We must recognize this, and we must recognize that they view us as crazy horribly anti-Islamic people. We know we are not. But there exists an unprecedented clash of beliefs when in reality, our belief in ourselves is similar to their belief in themselves. Essentially, the only way to defeat that enemy is to understand fully the situation. And what makes this war so difficult to win, is that our enemy has many people willing to do what you said you probably could not, and neither could I- and that is die for their traditionalism and religion.
I think saving family and friends at your own expense is realistic, as you point out, and dying for a cause is idealistic - sometimes. I find it hard to believe that dying for America, democracy, or religion to be valid. I am not saying my opinion is shared by many or any, but this is what I believe. People who would die for something, like MLK or Jesus did, are martyrs. The very act of them dying is what may make a cause or a concept more significant (i.e. african-american rights). And, I guess in this case, dying for that is valid. But I don't think dying to defend or promote democracy or religion is valid. Yes, we should respect someone who has shown dedication to something. Maybe not in the sense of suicide bombers inflicting harm onto others (not just U.S. citizens), but more like someone like MLK, as you said.
To me, this brings up the question about fighting a war against a concept. I don't believe it is worth it. Again, perhaps a single cultural leader dying for an idea is worthy of praise, and this should be recognized by all. But, many people fighting to promote democracy or religion just seems pointless. I think time is better spent fighting a concept through methods other than warfare. I would also find it very hard to die for democracy or religion. But your question "what would I not let die" is an easier, and more favorable approach to seeing what one cares about, truly. And, the question does not necessarily put you at risk.
I really enjoyed reading your blog. I think the way you changed the question from "what would yo die for?" to "what would you not let die?" was very clever. It was really thought provoking and realistic. While we would like to thing of the question as not letting something die, phrasing it like that kind of makes it lose context to war. Of course we would like to think of it as not letting something die, but that does not necessarily imply what the original question did about losing your life. I really liked yours though.
This is probably my favorite blog so far. I find your comparison of the Founding Fathers and Suicide Bombers completely appropriate. I personally do not suicide bombers but their actions are completely justified. Their views are not the same as ours, different culture and religion. However, I do not think our Founding Fathers were ready to sacrifice their lives for this country. Suicide bombers are using death as their path to success unlike the founding fathers or the rest of the people in this world.
I like your comparison between suicide bombers and George Washington. You'll have to tell Mr. Cotton about that one. I think it is completely valid by the way.
To go off of your comment about what you would die for, truly, everyone is motivated by selfish reasoning. Why would one die for a friend or family member - so they do not have to live without them. Why would someone die for their country - to gain fame and be remembered as being a hero. I am not saying that people who die for others are selfish, I'm just saying that this is the sub-conscious thought process. I think it's hard to accurately say what we would die for without being tested.
I agree with you when you compared the founding fathers to suicide bombers. Although one is slightly more extreme than the other, they don't seem to too far off. Both are/were willing to die for what they believed in. Cool read.
Post a Comment