If one believes there is no actual life after death, and everyone dies eventually, then all that survives anyone is their legacy, so dying sooner rather than later in exchange for a greater rather than lesser legacy makes a kind of rational sense. — Pfhorrest
How to you explain greater legacy as a consequence of dying sooner? How would the length of one's life have anything to do with "legacy?" Does it relate to a culture of honoring those who sacrifice their lives to their country? Why should anyone care about legacy? — Nils Loc
I can see it being a rational choice (but by no means an obligatory one) to pick option 2. — Pfhorrest
but how does one justify risking ones life for any cause whatsoever without knowing what if anything may exist after life? — TiredThinker
How would anyone take a risk at anything, because obviously nobody knows if there is life after death?I do not wish to underscore the noblest of ideals held by many in the military, but how does one justify risking ones life for any cause whatsoever without knowing what if anything may exist after life? — TiredThinker
How much does one person's voice/actions/vote count in the course of this flow. — Nils Loc
Despite the fact that game theory has been rendered mathematically and logically systematic only since 1944, game-theoretic insights can be found among commentators going back to ancient times. For example, in two of Plato’s texts, the Laches and the Symposium, Socrates recalls an episode from the Battle of Delium that some commentators have interpreted (probably anachronistically) as involving the following situation. Consider a soldier at the front, waiting with his comrades to repulse an enemy attack. It may occur to him that if the defense is likely to be successful, then it isn’t very probable that his own personal contribution will be essential. But if he stays, he runs the risk of being killed or wounded—apparently for no point. On the other hand, if the enemy is going to win the battle, then his chances of death or injury are higher still, and now quite clearly to no point, since the line will be overwhelmed anyway. Based on this reasoning, it would appear that the soldier is better off running away regardless of who is going to win the battle. Of course, if all of the soldiers reason this way—as they all apparently should, since they’re all in identical situations—then this will certainly bring about the outcome in which the battle is lost. Of course, this point, since it has occurred to us as analysts, can occur to the soldiers too. Does this give them a reason for staying at their posts? Just the contrary: the greater the soldiers’ fear that the battle will be lost, the greater their incentive to get themselves out of harm’s way. And the greater the soldiers’ belief that the battle will be won, without the need of any particular individual’s contributions, the less reason they have to stay and fight. If each soldier anticipates this sort of reasoning on the part of the others, all will quickly reason themselves into a panic, and their horrified commander will have a rout on his hands before the enemy has even engaged. — SEP
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease, Creating, yet not possessing, Working, yet not taking credit. Work is done, then forgotten. Therefore it lasts forever. Not exalting the gifted prevents quarrelling. — Lao Tzu
but how does one justify risking ones life for any cause whatsoever without knowing what if anything may exist after life? — TiredThinker
I am assuming we can't prove an afterlife. Therefore a loss of life is a loss of everything — TiredThinker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.