Is Survival Selfish?

FTR-14c

FTR-14c

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
1,974
As part of a lesson in my sons ninth grade English class, the students read a poem about a man on the Titanic who helped fill a lifeboat with family and other passengers then jumped on board to save himself. He was later criticized for not staying behind. They also read a book about a family that became separated during the Holocaust and the son was the only survivor because his father sacrificed what little food they had.

The students were later asked to write an essay on the subject: Is Survival Selfish

When My son asked me how I felt, I explained that every situation is going to be different but family comes first. If I were stranded with a hand full of strangers I like to think I would do what had to be done but in an ethical manner.

So, is survival selfish? I know its vague question but lets hear your thoughts or experience
 
Last edited:
Survival is imperative. Sacrificing yourself for a stranger dodges the question of why he didn't sacrifice himself for you. In this context, I do consider family equivalent to self, so privileging a close relative is a form of survival also.

Keep in mind, that ethical questions are matters of opinion, and some situations are tricky enough there is no comfortable answer.
 
I think that yes it is by definition. Being selfish is doing whats best for YOU. Like Esav said, family and loved ones lives are equal to or have higher priority than your own so depriving them wouldn't necessarily be an issue. Beyond that survival is doing whatever it takes for you to get through a situation.
 
It may be sacrificing life or something as simple as finding a source of berries on a solo walk. Do you eat as many as you can find and keep it a secret? Or pick them and take them back to the group? The teacher left the question wide open with no wrong answer.
 
Sometimes it is, sometimes not.
When there is a competitive aspect, like more people than lifeboat space, survival will be selfish. Giving your spot away means you're not a survivor in some situations.
 
Self preservation is not selfish, though you might call self-sacrifice selfless. If you did something underhand to survive you are guilty of whatever the act was you committed.

Things get real murky ethically when self-sacrifice is taken for granted. Then you have a case of one person telling another their life is more valuable. Take for example the old women and children first trope which may have worked in the Victorian era. The "expendable young man/ selfless provider" role is just as unfair a gender role as the "dutiful housewife"; albeit one with far less debate. Equality means equality, you can't have it both ways.

For every titanic (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/04/sea-disasters ) there will be a case where survival of the fittest played out. In fact I would wager that in most cases throughout history women and children will have perished first.
 
I think its down to the individual person . your self preservation and your moral convictions . I would like to think the moral convictions would win out . that's why we have heroes . is survival selfish . it depends on how far your willing to go to survive . why dose a fireman enter a burning building to save a life .why would a police officer put him self in to arm's way . because of self sacrifice is built in us all . and weather we pick self preservation or moral convictions or self sacrifice . defines us and makes us the people we are .
 
I can see some aspects of surviving as being interpreted as selfish. Those would be extreme cases in my mind though. In nature, animals will abandon eggs and young to survive in extreme circumstances. Baby bear dies, Momma might be sad but later she can try again. If Momma bear dies, she doesn't care for the babies and they die too. Now I have heard people describe being prepared/supplied as selfish and I think that is pure bull!!!! When the feces hits the fan, the people with some supplies won't be taxing a stressed local economy like the unprepared who now draw in resources that may have been more useful in other areas or who cannot help more people because of their own limited resources.
 
"selfish" is usually used as a description of poor behaviour. Very appropriately.
But in a "be selfish or die" situation, I think those connotations shrink to an insignificant level.
I am suggesting that selfish isn't always bad.
 
To a certain degree, yes, it can be.

Suppose you and your wife and kids survive a ship sinking, and you are in a lifeboat with a very small amount of supplies, and a few other strangers. Do you watch passively while the food and water vanish and it looks dim for you all? Or do you slit a few throats in the night and the strangers bodies go overboard, leaving more water for your kids?

Or if you are Viigo Mortanson's character in "The Road" and in the shopping cart is a case of Hormel Chilli. Some stranger wants half of it, and won't take no for an answer? Do you kill him outright and avoid him following you and and bushwhacking you some night very soon?

It all depends on how dangerous the circumstances are, and where you are. How altruistic can you afford to be?
 
Self-preservation is a natural instinct. Sacrafice is noble ideal, but whether it is worth it or not is left to the one who has that ultimatum. IMHO leaving someone to die to save yourself is; in a strange way, like killing them. You may not of directly put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger, but you have drastically decreased or killed their odds of survival. I guess the point is it depends on how much guilt one is able to live with knowing that they inadvertently killed someone. There are endless scenarios someone can ask what I would do, but I don't have just one answer. I'm a pretty down to earth, straight forward, realist, so I dont' really see nobility in sacraficing ones self to save a total stranger.
 
Their teacher needs to pick up a dictionary, it's an adjective. (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

So your answer would be no.
 
Survival, or self-preservation, is a natural instinct and is neither selfish or unselfish.

The choices you make in order to survive however, can be.
 
FTR-14c said:
As part of a lesson in my sons ninth grade English class, the students read a poem about a man on the Titanic who helped fill a lifeboat with family and other passengers then jumped on board to save himself. He was later criticized for not staying behind. They also read a book about a family that became separated during the Holocaust and the son was the only survivor because his father sacrificed what little food they had.

The students were later asked to write an essay on the subject: Is Survival Selfish

When My son asked me how I felt, I explained that every situation is going to be different but family comes first. If I were stranded with a hand full of strangers I like to think I would do what had to be done but in an ethical manner.

So, is survival selfish? I know its vague question but lets hear your thoughts or experience
Click to expand...

Think about it in terms of responsibilities, especially if you have family/kids. You have to survive to care for them; otherwise, they could die.

For the most part, I would say "no".....not selfish in the bad sense. If one does forego survival for someone else, he should certainly not give up his life capriciously.

This was not a life or death issue; but it was a training environment....could have been in the real world. A classmate of mine who was at the desert phase of winter Ranger school did not assert himself for a place around a fire - it was so cold and wet that season the instructors authorized fires as a precaution. He was a gentle soul....did not want to push his way in. Lost part of his foot to frostbite.

What a waste. There's a time and place for bonafide sacrifice; but it needs to be worth it.
 
Why does a fireman enter a burning building to save a life?
Click to expand...
I'm a Fireman and we get quite a bit of training on what not to do. I would love to be the hero and make the grab but if it is a no go we will choose not to join them in death. Once you start figuring out it is their emergency you calm down a bit and do what you can by being a team player, which means not burdening them with having to rescue you too.
 
Is Survival Selfish?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. Sure there are exceptional circumstances like a crashed plane that's going to explode after only four people make it down the slide.

But most of the time 'survival' is easier if a group of people work together calmly and co-operatively.

470x400crash__11_,0.jpg
 
You have a family back home that depends on you. You survive so you can go back to that family. How is that selfish? You have to add more information or you are generalizing on insufficient facts.
 
I.N.F.K said:
Self-preservation is a natural instinct. Sacrafice is noble ideal, but whether it is worth it or not is left to the one who has that ultimatum. IMHO leaving someone to die to save yourself is; in a strange way, like killing them. You may not of directly put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger, but you have drastically decreased or killed their odds of survival. I guess the point is it depends on how much guilt one is able to live with knowing that they inadvertently killed someone. There are endless scenarios someone can ask what I would do, but I don't have just one answer. I'm a pretty down to earth, straight forward, realist, so I dont' really see nobility in sacraficing ones self to save a total stranger.
Click to expand...

Did you start the earthquake? Did you scuttle the ship? Then you have personal responsibility for those deaths.

Did you kill someone who was about to steal the food your family needs to survive? Then you have personal responsibility. Deal with that afterwards as you must. Otherwise…

Emergencies emerge. Some will live and some will die. It might go either way for anyone. If you live and another dies—unless you shoot him or something—that’s just the way it is.

Don’t take personal responsibility for an impersonal tragedy. You only increase your chances of dying. Take personal responsibility for personal actions within the limits of the situation.
 
Last edited:
Children and women first is a well known phrase
Prioritizing who survives
Plenty of stories of choosing who has their life in front of them and who has lived it
A moral pecking order of helping the weakest and sacrificing the strongest
The crew of a ship must help the passengers survive first

This all presumes a social order

Without social order?
Then there are no external rules
And we need to look at our internal rules and at what cost
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top