are you implying guilt is the reason a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his platoon? come on man have a little faith. he doesn't need to know the people he's saving to be motivated to save them. and the end result is death, thus ensuring no reward.
No, I didnt imply that at all. And saving fellow soldiers vs saving someone you love is sort of different. I dont think I would dive on a grenade to save a bunch of soldiers if I was one. I would step in front of a bullet to save my loved one though.
you guys talk about rationalizing pros vs cons but what about the stranger that runs into a burning building to help those inside when its equally if not more rational to wait for or call the fire dept while preserving himself? the outcome's not set in stone, who's to say the fire dept wouldn't be there in time, thus saving himself the risk.
I dont think most people rationalize it that way. I think that stranger sees a problem and reacts because not reacting is not in his nature because he values the safety of others above his safety. Most of that stems from wanting to do the right thing or wanting not to do the wrong thing. So I guess there is some guilt in it.
the point is, i don't think people can know all the pro's and con's of a given situation, and yet act not according to, but inspite of this fact.
I think youre right in that its a snap decision, most people know however what they value before said event goes down. For example I know that I value the lives of my loved ones more then my own, I dont need to think it over if the choice is in front of me to sacrifice mine for theirs, I already know the answer.
rationally speaking this isn't rational, especially when ones life is on the line, therefore disrailing the concept of all good deeds being selfish bc a person is acting despite uncertainty. unless of course the above mentioned are considered momentarily insane for acting this way it doesn't fit into the all deeds are selfish argument.
Actually it does fit, if you value someone elses safety over your own, you will act accordingly, thats rational. Most strangers wont run into a burning building to save strangers, family will though. there is a reason for that.
what about the terminator in T2? he was programmed to not be able to kill himself and yet allowed sarah to lower him into molten lava to prevent skynet from obtaining any information from him. but who knows, they never may have.
The terminator was a cyborg, living tissue over a metal exoskeleton. Joking aside, in the deleted scenes they removed the block skynet put on his neuronet processor and he was able to be intelligent enough to learn about self sacrifice for the greater good. In essence, he was being selfish to destroy himself with some help for his own logical programming to get the mission accomplished.
sarah conner: the future is not set.
Not according to T3
Terminator: Judgement day was only delayed, it was inevitable.
