This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |

« Phil Andrews' Smoking Ban | Main | The Deb Frisch Debacle »
Micha Ghertner has posted an article at Catallarchy on the difference between cash and wealth. I found it interesting... and not just because of the main point of the article. I am especially interested in the digression into why a soldier would jump on a live grenade.
Is it conceivable that the soldier jumped on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers, not out of a sense of duty or love, but in the selfish hope that his death would result in the posthumous award of a Medal of Honor, and somehow this contribution to his legacy was his sole motivation for committing suicide?
The problem with this argument is that it presumes to know what motivated the soldier – a desire for military decoration and glory. It’s easy to get the “correct” result if one stacks the deck, and that’s what Micha has done here.
So what does motivate a sane soldier to jump on a live grenade in order to protect his fellows? How can this possibly be an action of rational self-interest?
We may reasonably assume that the soldier who would do such a thing is one who values his fellows and their collective mission - at least, I feel this is a more reasonable assumption than supposing that such a soldier is hoping for posthumous bling. This valuation of his fellows and/or their mission is the root of the seemingly selfless behavior. A soldier who was drafted and was foiled in his attempt to escape to Canada, and is now looking for his first chance to desert, is not likely to jump on a live grenade for the sake of his fellows. There is at least some degree of volunteerism in the soldier being in the situation to have to make the decision in the first place.
So, if the soldier does value his fellows and their collective mission, the question would be; How much? More than he values his own life? Is that even possible? Well, sure… I certainly submit that it is. I was taught that love means placing the well-being of another above your own (as I discussed in the comments section of a post at autoDogmatic last week). You may feel that this is a simplistic definition, or you may even disagree with it, but you can’t deny that people really do behave in this way. One can act on rational self-sacrifice. A person’s own life is not always that person’s highest value.
(I have been amazed to hear Randroids argue that this is not possible, but they can be directed back to their Scriptures for refutation. Is it not better to die free than to live in servitude? WWAD?)
Also consider that a soldier who faces the decision of whether or not to jump on the grenade is one who is actually facing a bit of a gamble. An attempt to save his own life by leaping away and diving for cover may very well cause this soldier a lifetime of guilt over the deaths of his fellows. He knows well that many never get over their guilt, even if it is misplaced. If the soldier spends the rest of his life in remorse and regret, haunted and nightmarish, then was it worth it? How much lower quality of life is one willing to accept in order to continue to breathe? Especially when an attempt to escape the grenade may still result in one’s death or severe injury?
The soldier staring down at the fresh live grenade has to calculate the odds rather quickly. But that soldier has probably already done so long before the grenade rolls to his feet. He has made a rational decision that his self-interest involves risking his life for others, or for a cause. He has weighed the things he loves and values. He is acting in his own rational self-interest. To dismiss that rational evaluation as silly, uninteresting, and pointless is demeaning to the willful sacrifice that countless people have made in the name of our way of life.
Was it a useful analogy for Micha? I don’t see that it was – the point was better made without this digression, imho. Micha is correct in saying that cash is not wealth. But most of us do value cash itself to some degree, and it’s not fair to assume that this is a generally irrational valuation. Sometimes there is a deeper meaning to a symbol – or an action – than we first realize.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/338
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference There is No Such Thing as a Selfless Act:
» Doink from Doink
Matt Borne was perfect as the maniacle Doink. Peep the low fi but double good game notes, especially.This is one ... [Read More]
Tracked on August 4, 2006 8:43 AM
I too thought that Micah's assessment of the soldier/grenade scenario was terribly lacking. Without going off the rocker, I think there are a great many things which might motivate a soldier to do something like that - compounded by the adamantium bonds formed between men under fire and constant stress, the mutual dependance upon one another for survival at every turn, etc. There is also a very skewed prisoner's dilemma going on there: "If I don't jump on the grenade, nobody lives. If I try to jump away, the others will die (as you suggest, wulf, with all the accompanying guilt) and there is a chance that I might not get out of harms way. If nobody jumps on the grenade, we all probably die. Someone has to do it..."
That said, and this is purely anecdotal, I had a friend who was killed in Baghdad last February. Graduated top of his class at Michigan State, was top of his class in ROTC, and had just been accepted to the 101st Mountain Division Rangers program. A few weeks in-country, he's 21 years old and commanding a platoon of older, more seasoned soldiers, because he was the best of the best. On their way through baghdad, he ordered his platoon to stop and give assistance to civilians wounded in a militant uprising. While attending to a wounded woman, stuck in a car, he was killed by a suicide bomber.
Was he honored posthumously? Yes. A 4-star general delivered the eulogy. They don't do that for every grunt who dies in combat. His wife received his purple heart and some other medals for valor. And I am absolutely confident that none of this influenced his decision to aid a complete stranger. He loved the Army, but I'm sure he would've rather been home with his wife, his family, and his friends.
He very easily could've delegated that responsibility to anyone under his command. Alot of people would have. First Lieutenant Adam Malson took it upon himself, because it was the right thing to do, to "lead by example," and because that's the type of guy he always was.
Posted by: doinkicarus
at July 6, 2006 9:17 AM
Thank you for sharing his story, Doink. I looked up your friend and read some of the memorials and news stories. I am curious, do you know his wife? This story noted that she is in the Army.
Here is to First Lieutenant Adam Malson. We are lucky that men like him exist.
Posted by: Wulf
at July 6, 2006 10:25 AM
I'll tip a glass for Adam tonight...
For the subject, I wouldn't consider Ayn Rand to be the definitive libertarian writer on this subject: it would be Heinlein. Rational self-interest is good for a desert island. But none of us live on one of those, and we all feel some sort of duty to our fellow man. Without that sense, society breaks down. I'd say that sense is much more prominently displayed in the people that choose military service. While the movie missed out on philosophy, read Starship Troopers. They give the franchise only to those who complete military service, and explain that the reason for this is that those people have demonstrated that they have that sense of duty.
Posted by: Brad Warbiany
at July 6, 2006 10:57 AM
I didn't know his wife - they had been married for a very short time (I think less than a year) when he was killed. She had spent most of the earlier part of their marriage in Afghanistan, and shortly after she came back, he was deployed.
He had gone to high-school with me (a year younger than me, and a year older than my brother, who was very good friends with him) and then off to Michigan State for college - I believe he met his wife in the ROTC program there...
Posted by: doinkicarus
at July 6, 2006 10:58 AM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)