Why 'Sacrifice' Means Loss, Not Gain, by Craig Biddle

If we want our concepts and definitions to serve their proper purpose, which is to mentally unite essentially similar things and differentiate them from essentially different things, then we have to define words correctly. In regard to chosen actions, we need different words to denote the different concepts that subsume the different kinds of actions that people take in reality. Actions intended to result in a net loss, or those that result in such a loss due to lack of forethought or effort, are essentially different from those intended to result in a net gain. Properly formed concepts and definitions account for these differences. "Sacrifice," "forfeit," and the like refer to actions that render a net loss; "trade," "profit," and the like refer to those that render a net gain.

To explore more of these ideas visit:

[legendre]

The two contrasting stories about kidney donors makes for a very powerful point!

[lordcris]

Excellent video. It is very hard to see man of reason and rational thinking these days. Thanks you.

[JohnPaquette]

Great, great job, Craig! Very clear and accessible.

Impressively done all in one take, with no edits. It's also shot nicely, with good lighting and a good background.

[madderbass]

Excellent video. I hope it makes more people aware of the proper concept of sacrifice.

[jrshep]

Excellent, Craig, as always! Thank you!

[philosophy]

Thans a lot for this outstanding clarification! I really appreciate your explanations of Objectivism.

[wesbrown]

Everyone has the right to their own decisions, just not to force them on to others...

[legendre]

Excellent explanation, Mr. Biddle! :-)

[diegomorales]

What word or term do you prefer for the common meaning of sacrifice? Most well-intentioned people use sacrifice informally like when a parent says he "sacrifices for his kids" or when an athlete says he "sacrifices his stats to help the team win." Tradeoff? Investment? Price? Opportunity cost? Ideally, a different term will replace "sacrifice" for that usage.

[saarangsahasrabudhe]

I acknowledge your definition of sacrifice, but I may have an expanded one: A sacrifice is the giving up of a value you are SOLD on, for an UNSOLD value. This subsumes both how Rand used it and the sacrifice of animals to appease the gods (assuming you found the activity weird or unconvincing).

[hUMERETURNs]

The most sinister part was when the man from the first example said "no one should have X until" etc, and of course the only way that notion could be implicated in the real world is through force, and a government given absolute power. Human nature being what it is, the result would be as we saw with Stalin and Mao, absolute corruption, and it disturbs me that people cannot logically think through their beliefs.

Even if it was granted that everyone should eventually be "equal" in a wealth sense, the ends do not justify the means, and the only alternative to tyranny I can see is everyone becoming as self loathing and pathetic as this man, and that is not only tragic, but far less likely than the rise of such dictatorships that we have seen so many times.

Note also the zero-sum game he played, where all he could visualize was things being taken from one group, who now have less property rights, and given to another, who now have more. Sacrificing one type of equality, (one far more moral and fundamental) for another. You can see how this can become violent hatred of those with something, justified as being for the sake of those without.

It's a great example of an attitude coming from one person and the logical chain that leads to the death of over 150 million in the 20th century.

[MarkLPriest]

'investing' seems superior to 'sacrificing'

[mkloppel]

If you have two separate concepts you ought have two separate words. Ex: Chair & table.

Perhaps your referring to definitions? Such as if I decide to sit on the floor and eat my food on the chair? The floor does not change to chair and the chair does not change to table.

You would apply context and state:"I am sitting on the floor using it as I might a chair while using the chair as I might a table."

The definition for those concepts doesn't change, your context does.

Is that what you asked?

[jowb]

How can I tell when I have two different concepts and should have two words and when I have two instances of the same concept and should only have one word?

[MultiFortunatus]

Another trivium, there were medieval priests who said they intentionally sinned so they wouldn't feel prideful for being moral.

[TheRosa]

it is a shame that many people are guilted into giving up something of value to someone who may or may not deserve that sacrifice like a kidney to a stranger (what if that person did not take care of themselves and caused their own hurt?) or people who feel guilty for having more than others who sacrfice their desires to joing the peace corps,  I noticed that in government that demand of sacrifice (wealth redistrubution) is never both ways it only goes one way, and those who advocate for it never practice what they preach. secondly a sacrifice depends on what the motivation is, what the hopeful end game is. it depends on why your doing it, are you doing it because you feel guilty and are trying to ease that nagging conscience? or is it because of real love for that person? is the sacrifice going to actually help the situation for that person or is it just a bandaid to a person who is not going to appreciate it?  to me investment and sacrifice are one of the same, abraham was ready to sacrifice his son not because he wanted something greater but rather because he was commanded to and it was an act of faith, (he knew God could resurrect his son, he knew god promised to give him heirs through this son he was about to kill) he did not understand why he was being commanded to sacrifice his son but he trusted God implicitly.and he was rewarded for it. he became Gods friend, how many people would love to have a very wealthy kind person as a friend who would share all their wealth with them? have God as a friend is a zillion times more worthy. you see if a sacrifice is coerced or forced by guilt it will only destroy the giver and not help the recipient (because no doubt the giving is only a temporary bandaid to the problem that the recipient has and they do not benefit long term by it) no sacrifice from Jehovahs standpoint is to end unequal, both the giver and reciever should benefit. and the funny thing is Jehovah still considers it a sacrifice worthy of a reward. if I give up some times to preach and teach the bible ot people in the door to door ministry (even if they reject the informaiton I am sharing)sure I am sacrificing time and energy and resources I could be drawing or reading or being on the internet or painting. but I am not harmed by the sacrifice because I still get to do those things, (if I give up some money to feed people I do not know, I am still sacrificing something else I could be spending my money on, but I am not harmed by the sacrifice because I still get to eat),  and yet I am rewarded by the sacrifice still Jehovah is pleased and I get more benefits as well. giving and sacrifice was never meant to be the end in itself or just for some moral code demanding it, it was to done out of love with a purpose, Jesus sacrificed his right to human life because he obeyed Jehovah perfectly earning tht right it was a one time sacrifice that had permanent long term benefits to the receivers and Jesus was not permanently  harmed by it, he received his heavenly reward. you can give a man a meal for the day and tomorrow he will be hungry again, sure you could give up your meal for the day but could you afford to do everyday? what reward would that type of sacrifice have for you? the recipient? if you starve to death what will happen to the recipient? wont he starve too? sacrifices must have a proper motive and must not be wasted on things or people unworthy of such a sacrifice. If I have 100 dollars I can give it to a guy will buy drugs  or waste it or constantly needing repeating, or I can give it to someone who will invest it in something that will make such continual sacrifices short term like a suit or bus fare or prepaid phone so he can get a job or increase his ability ot help himself in some way.if I have vast knowledge on growing your own food on limited budget would it rather I teach that person (sacrificing time I could be doing something else)this information and helping them get started in helping themselves, is that not a sacrifice with a good long term benefit to the recipient and me? (it is still a sacrifice I am giving up something else i could be doing, or spending my money on, etc, but not harmed long term by that)  rather then just growing more food myself and giving it to him? you can sacrifice intelligently and logically or you can sacrifice foolishly and it not lead to good long term results for you and others, what reward would that be? naught. sacrifice and giving was never meant to be an end in itself and the recipients of those sacrifices were never meant to waste or abuse it but rather use it to enhance his life better so he can also give to someone in need, not to be the needy one all the time. understand.? altruism from what I can tell based on actions and idealogy wastes sacrifices and leads to waste and lacks a beneficial purpose for all concerned.and only decreases peoples wellbeing and wealth creation (wealth, money, time, ability, knowledge, resources ot make more wealth etc) which makes more and more sacrifice impossible as no one will be able to do so as they will be starving, sick, and needy themselves.