Yes, it is written in all languages
... meglio che un uomo solo muoia per il popolo. (his blood bringing good to us and to our children!).
Es ist vollbracht. [the St. John Passion adding O consolation for all afflicted souls!].
stat crux dum volvitur orbis..
About two thousand years now.
But it didn't save one single soul from suffering.
And the world turns and will turn ... until it is tired of turning.

It doesn't work.
Because history tells the facts: there's no gain, whatsoever.
What remains, and always will remain: a lot of rhetoric about hope and change.

The argument was raised by one of the bloggers at, Lea Lena, in a post heading Would You Consider Dying to Save Your Country from Dying?
She tagged it with ethics. And she linked it to heroism.
And she thought of a lump sum!
I commented on that. But we were not on the same wavelength, I suppose.
(You can look it up, if you like)

The question suggests that there is some exchange. I die, and the return of that investment is positive. I sacrifice myself, and someone is supposed to materialize that sacrifice.
A win-win situation.
Can you be rational about sacrificing yourself? Is it possible to jump for heroism, or do you jump for the other?
Of course, there's a difference between sacrificing yourself and becoming a hero.

[No misunderstanding, there is no moral judgment when I ask these questions. If you want to sacrifice yourself, but before sacrificing you try to negotiate a lump sum, that's fine with me! No problem.]

When I die, everything is over.
I cannot even say forever, because time has finished.
There's no gain for me, not even the enjoyment of evaluation.

And history tells us, there's no gain, whatsoever.
And always the rhetorics of hope and change.

So, is there intelligence in the world of sacrifices (think about the win-win situation of Abraham) or in the world of heroism.
And what has ethics to do with it?

(to be continued)