Which is more important? Yourself or other things?

[MozartLink]

I think the person is the most important thing in life and everything else being secondary. I would not, for example, abandon my mother if she were ill or sick and leave her to suffer just because I thought that something else in this life was more precious than her such as nature or this universe. Therefore, since the person is the most important thing, then what is important needs to be preserved. A person needs to live forever and be happy since that is preserving the individual and is respect towards their importance.

It would be disrespect and the worst thing for that said person to be nothing more than some biological organism that is just here to live and forever die and decay in the end. That is not preserving the individual. That is the worst horrible thing and a complete insult and demeaning of the person's value. I am just as important as anyone else and I as well as other innocent people deserve to be happy and preserved (to be immortal souls that live in an eternal blissful afterlife).

Some say this is selfish and arrogance. But here again, the person is what is more important than other things in life. The preservation of the person is what is important. It is a person's happiness, well-being, and preservation (living forever) that is important. No person's happiness, well-being, and preservation should be left out. That includes my own since I am just as important as anyone else.

The legacy and other things we leave for others are "other things." They are those less important secondary things compared to the individual. In other words, it is not the legacy and memories we leave behind for others that is the most important thing. The person his/herself is what is most important and it is his/her happiness, well-being, and preservation that is the most important thing in life.

In regards to sacrifice, that is good. If you put yourself through pain to save someone else's life, that is good. However, if you had to completely sacrifice yourself in the sense of forever no longer existing, then that makes you utterly inferior. You have demeaned your own self importance and you are just as important as anyone else. Not only have you made yourself inferior, but you have also made yourself nobody. When you forever no longer exist anymore, you are nevermore. You become nobody.

[yiostheoy]

I think the person is the most important thing in life and everything else being secondary. I would not, for example, abandon my mother if she were ill or sick and leave her to suffer just because I thought that something else in this life was more precious than her such as nature or this universe. Therefore, since the person is the most important thing, then what is important needs to be preserved. A person needs to live forever and be happy since that is preserving the individual and is respect towards their importance.

It would be disrespect and the worst thing for that said person to be nothing more than some biological organism that is just here to live and forever die and decay in the end. That is not preserving the individual. That is the worst horrible thing and a complete insult and demeaning of the person's value. I am just as important as anyone else and I as well as other innocent people deserve to be happy and preserved (to be immortal souls that live in an eternal blissful afterlife).

Some say this is selfish and arrogance. But here again, the person is what is more important than other things in life. The preservation of the person is what is important. It is a person's happiness, well-being, and preservation (living forever) that is important. No person's happiness, well-being, and preservation should be left out. That includes my own since I am just as important as anyone else.

The legacy and other things we leave for others are "other things." They are those less important secondary things compared to the individual. In other words, it is not the legacy and memories we leave behind for others that is the most important thing. The person his/herself is what is most important and it is his/her happiness, well-being, and preservation that is the most important thing in life.

What you seem to be asking is whom would you sacrifice for?

This is an interesting philosophical question.

I suppose you owe the most to your mother.

In second place I suppose you would owe the next most to your kids.

Everyone else on the planet must follow some kind of pecking order.

So even at birth, you already owe a debt -- to good old mom for your birth. Now whether she did it out of the goodness of her heart or she got pregnant due to some hot tryst, she still went though a lot of pain and toil to give you birth, then she nursed you at her paps.

So mom is clearly #1 on an a-priori basis.

Your kids did not ask to be born, but you took it upon yourself to conceive them, whether you are their father or mother. So for the mother this symbiotic relationship results in 2 obligations -- of the mother for the child and of the child for the mother.

A child is dependent on its parent(s) for its life while it is growing to maturity. The child can probably survive on its own after about 18 years, although 20 years is a more appropriate age to cut a kid loose on its own. Beyond that point of 20 years or so I would say the parents are free of their obligation to the child, although the child still morally owes a debt to its parents, probably until the parents die, due to the reality that old seniors need caring for even as children do and become dependent on their children in old age.

As Herodotus said, in peacetime sons bury their fathers, while in war fathers bury their sons.

So based on a-posteriori analysis the parent-child obligation seems very significant as well.

Besides parent-child and child-parent, all other relationships are relative. What did the person do to earn your care? What need the person do?

I would say to everyone else you owe due consideration under the ethical construction of Plato that everyone needs each other in society.

But I would not suggest that extraordinary sacrifice is warranted in any case. Due care is different than sacrifice.

The Masonic charge is to help others where it is more likely you can save them without a greater probability of bringing harm to yourself. So under Freemasonry if you have a 50% chance of preserving someone but a 51% chance of hurting yourself in the process then you DON'T do it. This is a charge with respect to other Freemasons however and not just to the ordinary Joe Schmoe.

[MozartLink]

I think the person is the most important thing in life and everything else being secondary. I would not, for example, abandon my mother if she were ill or sick and leave her to suffer just because I thought that something else in this life was more precious than her such as nature or this universe. Therefore, since the person is the most important thing, then what is important needs to be preserved. A person needs to live forever and be happy since that is preserving the individual and is respect towards their importance.

It would be disrespect and the worst thing for that said person to be nothing more than some biological organism that is just here to live and forever die and decay in the end. That is not preserving the individual. That is the worst horrible thing and a complete insult and demeaning of the person's value. I am just as important as anyone else and I as well as other innocent people deserve to be happy and preserved (to be immortal souls that live in an eternal blissful afterlife).

Some say this is selfish and arrogance. But here again, the person is what is more important than other things in life. The preservation of the person is what is important. It is a person's happiness, well-being, and preservation (living forever) that is important. No person's happiness, well-being, and preservation should be left out. That includes my own since I am just as important as anyone else.

The legacy and other things we leave for others are "other things." They are those less important secondary things compared to the individual. In other words, it is not the legacy and memories we leave behind for others that is the most important thing. The person his/herself is what is most important and it is his/her happiness, well-being, and preservation that is the most important thing in life.

What you seem to be asking is whom would you sacrifice for?

This is an interesting philosophical question.

I suppose you owe the most to your mother.

In second place I suppose you would owe the next most to your kids.

Everyone else on the planet must follow some kind of pecking order.

So even at birth, you already owe a debt -- to good old mom for your birth. Now whether she did it out of the goodness of her heart or she got pregnant due to some hot tryst, she still went though a lot of pain and toil to give you birth, then she nursed you at her paps.

In regards to sacrifice, that is good. If you put yourself through pain to save someone else's life, that is good. However, if you had to completely sacrifice yourself in the sense of forever no longer existing, then that makes you utterly inferior. You have demeaned your own self importance and you are just as important as anyone else. Not only have you made yourself inferior, but you have also made yourself nobody. When you forever no longer exist anymore, you are nevermore. You become nobody.

[yiostheoy]

I think the person is the most important thing in life and everything else being secondary. I would not, for example, abandon my mother if she were ill or sick and leave her to suffer just because I thought that something else in this life was more precious than her such as nature or this universe. Therefore, since the person is the most important thing, then what is important needs to be preserved. A person needs to live forever and be happy since that is preserving the individual and is respect towards their importance.

It would be disrespect and the worst thing for that said person to be nothing more than some biological organism that is just here to live and forever die and decay in the end. That is not preserving the individual. That is the worst horrible thing and a complete insult and demeaning of the person's value. I am just as important as anyone else and I as well as other innocent people deserve to be happy and preserved (to be immortal souls that live in an eternal blissful afterlife).

Some say this is selfish and arrogance. But here again, the person is what is more important than other things in life. The preservation of the person is what is important. It is a person's happiness, well-being, and preservation (living forever) that is important. No person's happiness, well-being, and preservation should be left out. That includes my own since I am just as important as anyone else.

The legacy and other things we leave for others are "other things." They are those less important secondary things compared to the individual. In other words, it is not the legacy and memories we leave behind for others that is the most important thing. The person his/herself is what is most important and it is his/her happiness, well-being, and preservation that is the most important thing in life.

What you seem to be asking is whom would you sacrifice for?

This is an interesting philosophical question.

I suppose you owe the most to your mother.

In second place I suppose you would owe the next most to your kids.

Everyone else on the planet must follow some kind of pecking order.

So even at birth, you already owe a debt -- to good old mom for your birth. Now whether she did it out of the goodness of her heart or she got pregnant due to some hot tryst, she still went though a lot of pain and toil to give you birth, then she nursed you at her paps.

In regards to sacrifice, that is good. If you put yourself through pain to save someone else's life, that is good. However, if ...

I typed more while you were reading.

I added a greater discussion of sacrifice.

Sacrifice must have limits. So I gave the Masonic limit.

Go back and re-read my entire response then edit yours sil vous plait so that yours becomes more meaningful.

[yiostheoy]

Social Philosophy also considers obligation to society -- Plato started this. What do you owe to your City-State? What about to your Nation-State?

Romantic Philosophy also considers obligation to God -- the Philosophy God. Augustine and Aquinas started that. Like to your mother, what do you owe to your God for creating you? Of course this presupposes you are not agnostic, atheist, or indifferent to God-ness.

It is somewhat of a Chivalrous notion that we are born with obligations -- to God, to mother, to king, to country, to countrymen.

Modern ethics extends these obligations to the Earth herself and to the other animals and plants upon it, to the air, to the waters, etc.