Journal of Controversial Ideas

I present a puzzle concerning individual self-sacrificing altruism (SSA) that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been considered before.1 I develop an argument that challenges the common sense attitudes towards self-sacrificial altruism in typical, paradigmatic cases. We have reasons to think that many paradigmatic acts of SSA may, on reflection, be irrational, that typical moral heroes are mistaken, that dispositional self-sacrificers should perhaps resist their good urges to keep saving people, and that the enchantments of heroism should regularly be resisted.2

I consider acts of SSA involving sacrificing one’s life for other human beings, focusing, for the sake of simplicity, on saving a single person. I believe that the argument can be extended to saving more than one, but will not do this here. I assume that the self-sacrificing agents in question have good lives which are worth preserving, that they are happy about their lives, and that they could (if it were not for their self-sacrifice) expect to enjoy their lives for a lengthy period of time. The self-sacrifice is, for them, something that they would in itself wish not to do; it is a great sacrifice, and they do it at least in part because they hold that it is the right (good, correct, noble) thing to do. Some instances of SSA are decided upon on an impulse, others allow for more time for reflection but, even in the former cases there is an awareness of the nature of the act. I also assume that there are no motivational pathologies involved in the sacrifice.

I focus on the objective goodness or rightness of acts of SSA, and assume for the sake of this discussion that the idea of objective goodness or rightness makes sense (a number of different meta-ethical views might suffice here). I look at SSA that is voluntary, intentional, autonomous and supererogatory (that is, beyond one’s duty). The people saved are strangers to the self-sacrificing rescuer and the latter is not acting in any relevant professional capacity, nor is the saviour otherwise responsible for saving them. I also assume that the self-sacrificer’s life is “for her to give”, in that she is not, say, a single parent to five young children, so that self-sacrifice would involve great direct harm to others to whom she has major obligations. I concentrate my efforts on instances of SSA that involve sacrificing one’s life, or putting it at great risk. The self-sacrificers need to be conscious of the nature of their decisions and actions as instances of altruistic self-sacrifice of this sort, at least in a weak sense. Yet putting one’s life at what one reasonably takes to be great risk suffices for the sake of our discussion, even if the hero recognises the possibility of survival and indeed survives. In the rest of this discussion, we shall speak of instances of SSA as genuine instances of self-sacrifice, even when there were great risks taken that did not in fact materialize; and hence it was not an actual self-sacrifice in the strict sense. I also assume, for the sake of this discussion, that those whom the would-be saviours attempted to save were indeed saved, and that it was reasonable for the would-be saviours to assume that they would be. We do not need to concern ourselves here with doubts about committing an SSA that follow from the chance that the person who is to be saved will not in fact be saved.

Finally, I focus on individuals sacrificing themselves as individuals, not as part of collective groups or within special structures (for example, army conscripts). These cases raise questions concerning matters such as legal obligations, contracts, and collective goods that would take us in different directions.3

Paradigmatic examples of SSAs would include jumping in and trying to save another person from drowning in a turbulent sea, an action that is extremely risky given one’s swimming ability; confronting, bare-handed, criminals who are tormenting an innocent person in a subway; or jumping in front of a running horse that would otherwise trample over a child. Such acts are typically seen as being good yet much beyond reasonable moral expectation, and are thus supererogatory and highly admirable, indeed heroic.

The basis for our discussion will be, as stated, the idea of supererogation. This means that we will be setting aside strong consequentialist positions (such as traditional utilitarianism) which rule out the supererogatory. The idea of the supererogatory also means that, conceptually, the cases involved will not be ones in which deontological duties to risk one’s life in order to save others will apply. Likewise, we will be assuming the absence of any tacit or explicit contractual arrangements here; nor are there any pertinent expectations of reciprocity. This means that the traditional normative theories will not be the direct way to evaluate this supererogatory altruism puzzle. Hence, setting aside empirical uncertainty, the evaluation of instances of SSA will aim for broad sensitivity to the emerging gains and losses in value. Whether an instance of SSA is correct or mistaken shall primarily depend on whether the act increases or decreases value. The aim will be to try to capture at least initially a broad spectrum of intuitions.4

Let us now consider a few examples that can help us understand the distinction between mistaken and correct acts of SSA. The easiest sort of case would be the dramatic risk-taking involved in rushing into one’s burning house when it is going up in flames, trying to save the family’s pet (say, the pet hamster), who is caught inside. For all the sorrow about the hamster, one should not put one’s life at great risk for such a cause. Let us call such examples Hamster cases.

Assume now that two young men and a young woman sacrifice themselves in order to save one other person who is known to be a no good, hate-filled, despicable, and previously violently harmful bully. All decent people who know this person think of him as a worthless scum. Let us assume that he is no longer actually dangerous, despite his continuous vile racist and sexist desires and intentions. Let us call him the Despicable Bully. It seems to me that there are excellent reasons to think that these two men and the woman have made a mistake. Together they have sacrificed themselves in order to save a person who is much less worthy. Even if we were not to go so far as to say that the world is better off without him, he is manifestly not worth the sacrifice of the lives of three good people. This result seems to be sustained also if there is only one person who sacrifices him or herself.

A typical case of SSA, by contrast with that of the bully, is thought to be very different. In a typical case, one sacrifices oneself and saves, we assume, a fairly good, decent human being. If one risks one’s life and saves such a person, this is considered a great deed.

In response to the apparent paradoxes we have encountered, of Counting Oneself as a Hero and The Past-Virtuous, and the threatened crumbling of much of the ethos of heroic SSA, one might veer strongly in a subjective, romantic direction, disconnecting decisions (and post-mortem evaluations) about SSA from calculations of anticipated value. This direction has a fairly strong resonance in common attitudes towards paradigmatic acts of SSA such as we have seen, and self-sacrificing heroism more broadly. The hero of the SSA sort, we might say, is exactly the sort of person who does not do calculations; to do them, and in particular consider him or herself in the calculation, would mean threatening the whole idea of the hero.

However, this radical shift to romanticism comes at a heavy price, of disconnecting our attitudes towards SSA from the typical sort of moral “calculation” and justification of moral thinking. It would, as it were, concede that we are unable to rationally defend typical acts of SSA. It would also distance moral action and thought from those places where “calculation” seems correct in indicating that SSA would be a mistake (for example, the Hamster or Despicable Bully cases). Similarly, we would lose touch with the situations in which SSA manifestly can make good sense, such as in cases of the redemption in Mafia guy. Is there no other way in which common-sense concerning SSA can be defended, without veering towards a radical, and largely irrational romanticism?8

It might be argued, as against the case that I have made, that an act of self-sacrificing altruism, by its very nature as SSA, creates value, it adds value to the world. The Counting Oneself as a Hero does take account of the new and overwhelming value created by acts of SSA but, the proponent of the current view will say, it takes it in the wrong direction. What matters is not that the act of SSA enhances the self-sacrificer, thus allegedly making him so valuable as to be unfit for sacrifice—thereby paradoxically self-defeating the value of the act of SSA. Rather, the value established by SSA is a value created in the world. The self-sacrificing agent has given away his life, and that act adds great value to the world. A world thought to be populated by cold calculators and self-preservers is seen also to have heroes who, by thinking of others and not thinking of themselves, and overcoming their fears and self-interest, redeem humanity, adding to our world this special, rare, type of value. The creation of that sort of value is what makes SSAs not only legitimate, but so laudatory.

The problem with this reply, however, is that it seems to beg the question. It simply assumes that SSA in a case such as we are considering is, all considered, a morally acceptable and admirable act—and therefore that it adds great value to the world, in a way that suffices to overcome the destruction of the value of the person sacrificing herself. Yet that is the very matter that my challenge puts under contention. My claim, we recall, is exactly the opposite, namely, that acts of SSA such as we are concerned with emerge, on reflection, to be apparent moral mistakes; they are wrong, they reduce value. The more value we wish to attribute to the person for her heroic acts, the worse this makes her error, in sacrificing herself. My move here is like those of jujitsu fighters, who use their rival’s weight against them.

Note that I do not require that we deny that there is value being added to the world by the self-sacrifice. For example, a death occurring in non-successful altruistic self-sacrifice (where the person is not saved) is impersonally better, in one way, than a senseless death in a road accident, because at least heroism has been displayed. More broadly, the appropriate sort of sacrifice has intrinsic value.9 I have pointed out, however, that our common neglect of the special value of the sacrificer is morally blind, and that, without begging the question, we cannot discount the weight of the great loss of the person who sacrifices herself.

We might note here that there is widespread and special mourning when someone like Gandhi, Sakharov or Martin Luther King dies. We recognize that there has been an unusually great loss—not perhaps to any individual but to the world. Even when such a person is very old and no longer engaging in acts of great altruism, we are aware of a special loss—that a person of the greatest worth no longer exists.

Moreover, speaking about the beauty of sacrifice in this way raises various dangers. One is that the “logic” of the romantic view leads to risk-taking and value-destruction beyond reason and morality. Repeatedly, in the mass media we see heroes praised for risking their lives for a pet or an object; for example, jumping into a frozen river to save the family dog, rushing into a fire to rescue the cat, or confronting the burglars in order to save the family’s jewellery. Romantic gestures such as these are indeed chivalrous and heroic. But they are also typically irrational, careless, and irresponsible. Second, an added risk is that, paradoxically, the more imbalance there is in the results of the sacrifice, the greater the added value may seem. Some might even think that the sacrifice is all the more saintly if the beneficiary is clearly unworthy of the sacrifice by someone so much more morally worthy. Third, there is the risk of something resembling quasi-fascism here, for conceptually the romantic view sees the need for sacrifice as an opportunity, and the safe, secure life which requires no self-sacrifices as barren land, lacking beauty.10 On examination, the “adding value” view raises the suspicion of involving fetishism of the romanticism of sacrifice.11

It would not do for the presenter of this view to fall back on the subjective intentions or attitudes of the self-sacrificers, however romantic. For, after all, such intentions and attitudes are present also in Hamster and Despicable Bully cases, but despite the undoubted moral heroism involved, these are clearly moral mistakes, which it would be wrong to do, and that do not confer the sort of uncontentious justifying value needed here. Notice, again, that I need not deny that there is value attained by saving the Despicable Bully, and even the Hamster. My sceptical conclusion concerning paradigmatic acts of SSA such as we are considering is surprising and radical, but my argument is based upon our common sense intuitions in cases such as Hamster and Despicable Bully, that the self-sacrifice is a mistake, because of the comparative value of those sacrificing themselves and those being saved. My claim is that a person who sacrifices herself for an ordinary person is making a similar mistake, because in the process of the self-sacrifice she acquires a higher comparative value that makes the sacrifice prima facie a mistake.

It might be further argued that one’s error in self-sacrificing oneself erases one’s status as a moral hero or heroine, hence, paradoxically, once again making one’s self-sacrifice permissible. But, at least in the clearer cases, that would be unreasonable. One is heroic, but quite possibly mistaken; mistakes should not be made, but do not eliminate the heroism—they make it misguided. Surely we can leave room for the idea that in many paradigmatic cases of SSA the sacrificer is morally admirable, even if my argument that such sacrifice should be avoided is convincing. In any case, the proponent of the objection would not really wish to deny the morally heroic nature of one’s acts (just because one has made a mistake), for this would then undercut the very claim that, through one’s act, one is introducing great value into the world.

Another possible reply to my challenge might be that the evaluation of acts of SSA should not be made according to a balanced evaluation of loss and gain, of the resulting state of affairs, but in the light of the idea of the gift. The self-sacrificing hero annuls, as it were, the weight—as a consideration against the sacrifice—of (a) his own value as a person with interests; and, by implication (b) the additional exceptional value he attains or reveals by becoming a heroic SSA. He decides to sacrifice himself, to give himself up, irrespective of these considerations.

In reply, we need not deny that this may be the hero’s phenomenology. It is also what we seem to be admiring in self-sacrificing altruists, the person’s willingness to be responsive to the needs of an “other” with the ultimate gift, risking his or her life; the agent’s selflessness. Yet we can nevertheless persist in wondering whether the self-sacrifice is correct. That it is convincingly thought of as a mistake in cases such as Hamster or Despicable Bully would strongly support scepticism here as well. Even if the self-sacrificing altruist discounts himself, we need to say that he cannot be the final determiner.

It might be claimed that my position, that people who become of greater impersonal value because of their moral merit have reasons to preserve themselves, raises a specter of dubious implications. If these reasons are stronger than the reasons to preserve the lives of ordinary people, what does this imply about, for example, health care distribution? Should governments now be reviewing people’s moral ledgers to determine which are most worthy of receiving priority in getting vaccines?

But I can maintain my view concerning the higher moral worth that SSA can generate, without this necessarily implying anything about proper social policy. There are excellent moral and political reasons not to publically allocate vaccines according to perceived moral merit, just as voting rights ought to be allocated equally. This does not imply that the loss of any human life is, impersonally, of equal weight, just as not all persons vote equally sensibly. Likewise, if we recall repentant Mafia Guy, his assassination is manifestly more destructive of impersonal value than would be that of a ruthless Unrepentant Mafioso; yet it does not follow that the latter’s assassin ought to receive a longer prison sentence.12

Moreover, common sense intuition does often favor the idea that, given a choice, it is better to save a morally worthy or deserving person rather than a scoundrel. Some favor the view that all potential victims should have an equal chance of being rescued, but many do not. My assumption about the differential value of morally worthy and morally unworthy people is not, here, in radical conflict with a large part of common beliefs about equality.

I may be thought to be too quick to dismiss the worry about how my view generalizes—surely it is not just a question of social policy. In particular, doesn’t the same issue apply to supererogation more generally, and to many altruistic acts? If we are both equally morally worthy, and I help you, I become more morally worthy, and thus deserve more than you, and, in anticipation, should I then not help you? I think that we need to firmly distinguish here between “normal” assistance and the issue of self-sacrifice. There is no motivation for limiting altruistic assistance to equals, and no inherent difficulty with generosity; there is little reason to see this as, in itself, problematic. With SSA, by contrast, the contributor is on course to eliminate himself (whether this materializes in the end or not). The question is one of survival, of continuing to exist. Whether such elimination can be morally justified, in the paradigmatic sort of case under contention, is crucially dependent upon who survives, and whether this is good or bad.

It might be further claimed that the seemingly irrational heroic acts of SSA do make sense, from a more strategic perspective. We also have to take into account collateral gains. Acts of SSA will make many others feel good about humanity and, in turn, inspire many of them to contribute as well, resulting in further contributions (though typically not life-sacrificing ones). This is so even if we consider the cases which appear to be romantic excesses. People are inspired by hearing about the self-sacrifice for one’s beloved pet; and burglars are deterred by the thought of a householder’s life-risking possible resistance; even when those are, on the local level, far too risky and highly irrational. Moreover, the disposition to be ready for self-sacrifice often goes together with other, more moderate positive tendencies, and hence is worth cherishing.

However, there is, first, a question of the extent to which such collateral gains actually occur, and what weight we ought to give to them as compared to the other factors. Some temporary public “feel good” effect, or even a minor increase in charitable donations, does not seem sufficiently important.

Then there is, second, a risk of begging the question, but here pragmatically: if the public perceives most acts of SSA as morally laudatory, then this may generate collateral gains. But if, as the challenge I pose suggests, many such acts are moral mistakes, and this is recognized, then the perception of actual acts of SSA as widespread moral mistakes is much less likely to produce collateral gains.

It might then be said, because of the importance of the collateral gains, that the nature of acts of SSA as mistaken-in-themselves should not be publically disclosed, and ought to remain as it were esoteric knowledge. Put differently, the positive value of these acts lies not so much in themselves, but in the effects of the way in which they are perceived. But this move in effect concedes my challenge, and indeed gives it so much weight as to require hiding it. For it says that in themselves, cases of SSA such as we are considering are mistakes, but this should not be publicized because we may thereby lose some unrelated, more numerous but much smaller effects, which may depend on the widespread false perception of those acts of SSA.

Moreover, there is something deeply repellent in the idea that minor, cumulative, non-heroic gains make the difference and tip the balance in favor of acts of SSA. These are the cases in which typically a human being (and an exceptionally admirable one at that) sacrifices his or her life. Perhaps such acts of SSA do have their indirect uses, but this can hardly be the major consideration. In cases of rushing to sacrifice oneself, what seems to matter is the person one tries to save, and one’s own life. If my argument is convincing, we should also worry about the effects of heroic examples of SSA in motivating others to commit similar acts. Any collateral effects on others that do not involve SSA seem minor, and not the right sort of consideration in favor of SSA.

Finally, it might be countered that all humans are of equal value, and that even performing an act of SSA does not make a person more valuable. And that, if accepted, would solve the difficulty. Sometimes it indeed matters only that one is a human person. For example, when we want to say that every (adult) person merits a right to have one vote in democratic elections in his or her society. However, in our context it seems highly implausible that only this kind of value (which each person is born with) matters; and no weight may be given to any special worth, merit and desert that one acquires through one’s intentions and actions, however admirable.

Furthermore, an insistence that only the formal sense of equal human worth, which everyone is born with, matters, would make it impossible to reach the conclusions we saw as very plausible at the beginning of this paper. For example, that sacrificing oneself for the Despicable Bully would be a moral mistake; or, by contrast, the moral acceptability, and indeed fittingness, of self-sacrifice in cases calling for moral redemption (such as in Mafia Guy). For, after all, all these people equally meet the criteria of personhood.

A more moderate egalitarian stance may, however, be more plausible. There might be an explanation for our intuitions concerning cases such as Hamster and the Despicable Bully, that is nevertheless compatible with the rationality of self-sacrifice in the paradigmatic cases that I am challenging. A crude view might be that it is a mistake to sacrifice oneself for anyone—human or animal—who is below some threshold of worth, but acceptable and admirable to sacrifice oneself for anyone above that threshold. The Hamster does not have adequate moral standing to begin with, while the Despicable Bully has forfeited or significantly reduced his. Any person over a baseline of basic decency would always be worth saving.

Another and perhaps more plausible variant might be gradualist, with an imprecise threshold: it would imply that self-sacrifice is a greater mistake the farther below the threshold the potential beneficiary is, and more acceptable and admirable the farther above the threshold the potential beneficiary is. Yet while helpful in advancing our thinking, such attempts do not seem to me sufficient to diffuse my challenge. The loss of altruistic self-sacrificers, who are exceptional people with extraordinary value, does not seem to be adequately addressed even by these formulations, insofar as they nevertheless seek to retain our commonsense intuitions on paradigmatic instances of SSA. This and many of my previous points can be seen from a thought experiment resembling John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, which we might term the Test of Hope.