(February 4, 2014 at 2:24 pm)x2theone2x Wrote: How does that not disqualify that action as self-sacrifice: "the giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or to advance a cause." I'll give an example: John was a father to a child of two, john proclaims to love them very, very much. As they grew older, both had been discovered to have horrible kidneys. At one point in time, both of Johns children needed a kidney drastically, he could choose one, none, or both (death). The choice in reality doesn't matter from my position, none would be heroism or sacrifice. But, lets say John chose to give up both his kidneys so both his children could live. He chooses death to provide life for another(s), from a societal perspective the ultimate sacrifice, an altruistic example. Prior to the operation, John receives emotional comfort knowing his children will be able to continue to live, and the other emotional or physical comfort he could feel is near infinite. John sacrificed his organs, but he never gave up his own interests, because if it went against his interests it wouldn't have been done. The act of providing both his kidneys may have been adopted after the news of his children, and if it was, that is now the interest or wish.
Ok, so now you're down to torturing language in an attempt to say that sacrifice doesn't really exist because the sacrificer has a positive emotional experience before the sacrifice. Even the definition you gave doesn't require evaluation of emotional reactions to the idea of sacrifice. Notice I said idea of sacrifice, not sacrifice itself since the sacrificer in your example is dead after the fact. The fact that John valued the continutation of his sons' lives more than his own is the essence of his sacrifice, not the reason we should claim that the act is not a sacrifice.
You can't just run around substantially changing the meanings of words in order to invalidate them.
