Is Survival Selfish?

To take your chance in the thick of a rush, with firing all about,
Is nothing so bad when you've cover to 'and, an' leave an' likin' to shout;
But to stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew,
An' they done it, the Jollies -- 'Er Majesty's Jollies -- soldier an' sailor too!
Their work was done when it 'adn't begun; they was younger nor me an' you;
Their choice it was plain between drownin' in 'eaps an' bein' mopped by the screw,
So they stood an' was still to the Birken'ead drill, soldier an' sailor too
 
HMS Birkenhead, also referred to as HM Troopship Birkenhead or steam frigate Birkenhead,[3] was one of the first iron-hulled ships built for the Royal Navy.[4] She was designed as a frigate, but was converted to a troopship before being commissioned.[1]

She was wrecked on 26 February 1852, while transporting troops to Algoa Bay at Danger Point near Gansbaai, 140 kilometres from Cape Town, South Africa. There were not enough serviceable lifeboats for all the passengers, and the soldiers famously stood firm, thereby allowing the women and children to board the boats safely.

Only 193 of the 643 people on board survived, and the soldiers' chivalry gave rise to the "women and children first" protocol when abandoning ship, while the "Birkenhead drill" of Rudyard Kipling's poem came to describe courage in face of hopeless circumstances.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...Paw-R6ACNrGchfFVw&sig2=f8cI7fG2fpyjAQFCwuaRkA

For those as ignorant as I.
Thanks Thomas.
 
Thanks for the poem Thomas, quite fitting, and thanks Mtangent, I was ignorant to that one too. It is apparent that although these men did not physically survive, their legacies sure did. I hope that if I were placed in a similar situation that I would make the same choice.
 
My sons name is Shane and he is very pleased with the responses to this thread. He wants to thank you all for your thoughts and feelings.

It turns out that Mondays assignment was only a first draft. The students shared what they wrote for discussion. The actual paper to be graded will be due on Friday.

With all of your thoughts and perspective, it turns out that this thread has become very useful to Shane.

Thanks again
 
As has been said, it depends alot of the individual situation.

I don't think self defense is selfish at all. But I do think it is
a form of survival. I think part of what justifies it though, is
summed up in one word: retribution. A justified punishment
as consequence to ones choice of action. To threaten or
harm another for what is rightfully thiers is wrong. In many
cultures it is considered a crime worthy of death.

If someone is willing to threaten or even murder myself or
my loved ones for what we have, then they may do it to
others too. Thus there could be a civic duty to protect thier other
potential victims from being murdered as well.

AS to other situations, lost in the wild, ship wreck, etc:

Someone else mentioned that leaving another person behind is
in a way killing them. While I do agree that not saving them
does imply a lesser chance of thier survival, to suggest that
it's your, or my, job to save everyone is nonsense. I believe it is
every adult persons' own responsibility to train, learn and prepare.
It is thier own responsibility to decide thier priorities and
if survival had been one of them, then they should have made
more effort to be ready, and to do so. If they did not for whatever
reason, that is thier problem, and thier fault. Not mine.
Nor will I feel any guilt or shame for not saving them.

Now if saving them is something I can do without significant
risk to my own(or my loved ones') well being, then I will.
I'm not heartless. But if saving them means a major risk to
my own survival, hey, sucks for them.

I also think that it may be fair to say that alot of the altruistic
ideals people place on survival situations are illogical.
The idea that letting the strong die off first to save the weak
seems kind of silly. If they were too weak to survive on
thier own, then how are they gonna survive once you're
dead and no longer there to baby sit them?

As someone else mentioned, if the baby bear dies, momma
bear can have another baby bear. If momma bear dies,
so do all her babies, present and future.
Self sacrafice can be noble and beautiful in the
movies with fancy music and pretty sunsets,
but in reality it seems to be more detriment than
benefit.

If you wanna call it selfish, fine. Maybe selfish
makes a stronger more responsible people.
 
Last edited:
On another note, I'd also like to say that I believe self
sacrafice, which seems to be at the core of the question,
comes from one true source: Love.

LOVE is what makes self sacrifice a beautiful and
romantic concept. It is to be admired and appreciated.

But that does not make it a moral responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Not doing one's best to stay alive is an insult our ancestors and life in general. That said we have responsibilities to others. Everything in life is a balancing act IMHO.
 
I didn't realize there were different definitions. I thought it meant someone who didn't survive, i.e. - is deceased.
 
From a purely "survival of the species" point of view, it only makes sense to sacrifice oneself if you are incapable of reproducing.
 
Of course survival is centered around the self. To be self-ish simply means to value one's self first, in order to care for others second. I always use the analogy of being on an airplane for this, but there are others. In other words, if you don't take care of yourself first, you can't be there to care for your family, community, country, and world.

The real question really isn't whether survival is selfish, but whether being selfish is inherently wrong.
 
mtangent said:
From a purely "survival of the species" point of view, it only makes sense to sacrifice oneself if you are incapable of reproducing.
Click to expand...

What happens if you and two women, your wife and say, her friend, are on a sinking boat with the means to only save 2 people though? Self sacrifice for the noble image of chivalry, or self preseving for the survival of the species with the knowledge you left a human behind and the ridicule of most people you meet?
 
Noswad0208 said:
What happens if you and two women, your wife and say, her friend, are on a sinking boat with the means to only save 2 people though? Self sacrifice for the noble image of chivalry, or self preseving for the survival of the species with the knowledge you left a human behind and the ridicule of most people you meet?
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is the question the thread is about. Chivalry is a social construct, not a biological imperative.
Survivors do what it takes. In your scenario, the chivalrous will die. Either way, it would be my personal choice, either be chivalrous & let myself die, or leave my wife's friend behind. Depends how I feel at the time, I suppose.

As I said earlier, sometimes survival is selfish, but that doesn't make it wrong.
 
There's a reason why airlines tell you to put your own O2 mask on first: If you take steps to insure your own survival first, then you are in a position to help others. Otherwise, you are just another rotting corpse and utterly useless to those around you.
 
Brommeland said:
There's a reason why airlines tell you to put your own O2 mask on first: If you take steps to insure your own survival first, then you are in a position to help others. Otherwise, you are just another rotting corpse and utterly useless to those around you.
Click to expand...

Well said.
That about sums it up for me.
 
Every action we take is motivated by self interest. That's not a bad thing, it's just the way we are. For example, someone like Bill Gates gives gajillions of dollars to charities. That's a wonderful thing, and it helps lots of other people, but Bill and his wife do so because it makes them feel good and is the right thing to do in their minds. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it isn't "selfless." Another example: A guy sees his young child out in the road in the path of an oncoming car. He runs out, grabs his child, throws them clear, and is hit and killed himself. A noble act, to be sure, but again, not selfless. He did so because he was willing to give his own life in exchange for that of the child he loved. It was his overwhelming and selfish love for his child that motivated him. In order to be truly "selfless," a person would have to care nothing about themselves, and people who care nothing about themselves aren't going to have any motivation to do anything for anyone else. We need to stop equating the term "selfish" with the term "greedy." A selfish act is simply one that is beneficial to oneself. A greedy act is one that sacrifices the rights, well being, or even life of another to gain more than one needs in order to protect or provide for oneself. There's a huge difference. The child who brings his own toy to daycare and doesn't want to share it is selfish. It's his toy, and the other children have no right to it. That's fine. The child who hogs all the toys provided by the daycare center and refuses to share them is greedy. That's not fine. [/armchair philosopher mode:D] :thumbup:
 
Many of us were raised to put another's needs before our own. We're taught to share and to take care of those we love, and in doing so, this character trait becomes our identity. This goes for both men and women. While there's inherently nothing "wrong" with serving others so selflessly, we've reached a point in human evolution where we must take responsibility for ourselves. We can no longer put the blame on someone else for our own unhappiness, and we can no longer be martyrs. We must consider what it is to serve ourselves.

By serving and taking care of our own needs first, we can better serve our families, friends, and communities. When we do this, we don't come home from work angry and frustrated, only to take it out on those around us or stifling our emotions inside ourselves so they can fester ill-health...or create a myriad of other assorted issues we aren't even aware of. When we look after our self first, we also won't have the need to seek fulfillment outside a healthy relationship because we're already fulfilled from within.

The airplane analogy I refer to above has to do with passing out the oxygen masks on a plane full of children. You can choose to start taking care of others first, and maybe you'll save five or six before succumbing yourself...or you can place the mask on yourself first and save the entire plane.

The irony is that being self-ish is one of the greatest ways we can serve one another. Being self-sacrificing is not.

This has been one of the hardest lessons for me to learn, and still learning, because it's not always easy to erase societal and familial conditioning. YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top