SACRIFICE
Paper
on Sacrifice and its attributes in context of DNESA description
methodology
By Deepak Loomba
Email: dl.dstl@gmail.com
Table of Contents
The reason for dwelling into this concept of sacrifice is
the frequent claim of sacrifices by political leaders and activists. There is a
confusion caused by use of various objective but older, as also subjective
meanings of sacrifice concurrently. Such confusion is customary in case of concepts that
have lived and transformed themselves since times ancient and immemorial.
While in ancient times propitiation was a norm, it is not so any more. Hence, there
is a need to redefine & present a new description of the concept of sacrifice
in context of modern ethics.
While various understandings of the concept of sacrifice
co-exist; like the religious offering to deities, yet it is important to
recalibrate description of sacrifice in the context of modern day ethics for
the society. There is no control over subjective definitions of personal
sacrifices, nevertheless, as a modern society we need to agree on a common
description of objective sacrifices that are universally accepted in a society
to avoid claims & counterclaims, especially political, of sacrifices made
by various people and leaders for the nation.
In view of the aforementioned,
this paper endeavors to present a fresh semantic & ontological description
of Sacrifice, concurring with current ethical & moral standards of a modern
society.
Derived from old French which in return is
derived from Latin and is made of Sacer (Holy) and Facio (to make). Thereby, it
originally meant offering of anything to a god or deity; a consecratory
rite.
Purposefully,
willfully and
irrevocably
forego something
dear, such that the
consideration in
exchange is a higher cause
of intangible value for an individual or a community. Therefore, the sacrificer
[1]
endures a
non-replenishable loss,
knowingly, for a
greater purpose that
ensues only in future &
endures the impact
of the loss personally on himself, excluding anyone else from undergoing
the impact of loss.
Loss is the most fundamental constituent of sacrifice. Only
real losses - those of something that exists in sacrificer’s possession are
qualified as sacrifice. Notional losses are unacceptable for terming an act as
sacrifice. As an example - "Had I gone to work, instead of being with you,
I would have earned 1000 Dollars". Does not qualify as a sacrifice of
1000Dollars. Furthermore, if as a result of an act one's loss is reduced or
mitigated the act cannot be termed as sacrifice.
Non-replenishment of loss is also important. A good example
is blood donation - when one donates blood, it can be termed as charity at
best, but not sacrifice, because the body replenishes the donated blood in a
few hours, naturally.
Another important relationship of sacrifice is with risk.
Sacrifice is neutral to risk. An Increase of risk of loss or damage in an act
does not qualify the act as a sacrifice, notwithstanding the extent of risk.
Therefore, it is not the risk of a loss, but the loss itself, that qualifies an
act as a sacrifice.
Purpose is the most important component of sacrifice. If any
loss borne by sacrificer is such that either (i) there was no underlying
purpose (design) for him to undergo the loss or (ii) the purpose (design) is
fabricated [by him or others] after the act of sacrifice, the most important
& necessary condition for an act’s qualification as a sacrifice is
unfulfilled.
Purposeless acts as described above do not qualify as
sacrifices. Therefore, political figures who, unfortunately got murdered can be
called martyrs as they fall for their beliefs & policies, but they cannot
be said to have sacrificed their lives. An assassination is not underwent by
the sacrificer willfully and the sacrificer tenders no purpose for such
departure from life. Thus, not qualifying such acts of death, as sacrifice of
life. It is nothing but a mindless & purposeless murder. Soldiers, who walk
into a battle purposefully, losing their limbs & lives, can be said to have
sacrificed their lives.
Requirement of purpose of sacrifice has not changed through
all the years since ancient times to the most modern and recent, though the
profile of the purpose has altered with time. More details are available in the
section – ‘Properties of Sacrifice’.
There are several instances, where the purpose for which a
sacrifice is made does not fulfill or is partially fulfilled. Many such
sacrifices which do not fulfill the purpose might be termed a sacrifice in
vain, yet they retain the title of sacrifice.
The knowledge of purpose of sacrifice may or may not be
known to anyone other than the one sacrificer. Hence, anonymous sacrifices are
as true sacrifices as those in which the sacrifice & benefactor are known.
Lack of cause is the second important attribute of
Sacrifice. It has to do with the time of sacrifice. An act is unacceptable as
sacrifice, when it is preceded by a cause. In ancient times, propitiation and
expiation (atonement) were the only cause for sacrificial offerings. Hence, the
time of occurrence of sacrifices could either precede or follow the cause of
sacrifice. With rapid development of rationality in last couple of centuries,
an act of sacrifice now essentially precedes the occurrence of prospective
cause of sacrifice. Sacrifices occurring after the occurrence of the cause is
completely irrational, because the course of past events cannot be changed. Concurrently,
atonement through sacrifice, no more has any traction in any modern culture
anymore, barring some very old cultural mores that may retain such a
practice.
Sacrifices made in course of life for one’s immediate
relatives often go unrecognized and unnoticed. Therefore, many a times there
will be no emotional connect (explained ahead) of the benefactor vis-à-vis the
sacrifice. Indeed, many a times, sacrifices made in personal lives for kin are
not realized by the sacrificer himself. I call such small and big sacrifices
silent sacrifices. A good example would be my mother leaving her share of mango
slices for my dad, because she knew he liked it more. Such an act is
purposeful, non-replenishing loss, willful, causeless, irrevocable, there is
dearness of that which is lost to my mom, there is little she gets in exchange
immediately, the impact of loss is borne by herself only, she will be ready to
scale the oblation, if needed, there is self-ownership, emotional connect of
the sacrificer and the benefactor. Therefore, by all indicators it is a
sacrifice. But she did it and my dad benefitted from it silently. That is the
way she expressed her care for him. These are silent sacrifices that all normal social beings make for each
other. Indeed, such sense of sacrifice is not restricted to humans. It extends
into the animal kingdom.
Therefore, many of such sacrifices, seem not to be one, and
might be realized at a much later date or never ever by either or both – the
sacrifice and the benefactor. Yet they remain sacrifices.
There are two time-displaced circumstances vis-à-vis an act
that is measured on its qualification as a sacrifice.
In some cases, the necessary conditions to qualify an act as
sacrifice seem fulfilled but with passing time one realizes that in reality one
or more of the conditions (usually irrevocability or dearness of the oblation
or exchange value) are not fulfilled. We called such cases time-displaced
sacrifices.
The other possibility is when an act might seem not to
fulfill the necessary conditions but at a later time, it really does fulfill.
Example would be expectation of replenishment, which does not happen. Such
cases are also categorized as time-displaced sacrifices.
Willful loss is another necessary element. Take an example
of a man who dies saving another drowning man. The act can be termed sacrifice,
if he wilfully jumps in the river. But if he was pushed by someone, the act is
not deemed as sacrifice.
Irrevocability of that which is lost is also a necessary
condition for terming a loss, as sacrifice. If one forgoes an opportunity to
board a plane in favour of another, who has an urgency to board. Such an act
can be termed as kindness, compassion, humanity but not sacrifice, because one
knows that the airline will deliver one to destination at the next available
flight. On the contrary, donating one's kidney in charity is surely an act of
sacrifice as there is no scope of growing a kidney back in place of the one
donated (hence, non-replenishment of the loss) or retrieving it back from the
recipient any time in future. Hence, irrevocability is important. Anything that
is not irrevocably given or lost, shall not be treated as Sacrifice.
Dearness of that which is lost is also critical to the act
of sacrifice. Forgoing that which is not of substantial value to one -
financially, emotionally or physically. For one to irrevocably, willfully and
on purpose to give away some money will remain charity and not qualify as
sacrifice. But giving away a very dear toy away for a poor child, knowing that
one will never ever be able to have it again (non-replenishment) will be termed
as sacrifice.
Dearness when both non-replenishment and irrevocability are
available distinguishes sacrifice from charity.
While in earlier ages the ‘exchange’ element was clearly
established, as is showcased in the 6-stages of evolution of sacrifices –
including intangible for tangible, tangible for tangible, tangible for
intangible & now intangible for intangible. Ethically, quid pros have been
downgraded and very often considered corrupt.
Acting 'oneself' and enduring the loss is important to
classify an act as sacrifice. Sacrifices cannot be ordered/arranged to be
delivered by second party to third. Therefore, if the willful, non-replenishing
loss or the highest impact of such loss (the cost of sacrifice) is not borne by
the sacrificing person undertaking the act of sacrifice, then such an act does
not qualify to be sacrifice. Therefore, sacrificing an animal is not one’s
sacrifice at all. Reason – the highest impact of loss (of animal’s life) is
borne by the oblatory animal, not the one, who kills it.
For all the aforementioned reasons, seldom does material
loss qualify as sacrifice. Most material losses are replenishable and hence are
to be classified as charity, instead of sacrifice. Sacrifices, therefore are
more often intangible in nature and are intangibly purposed.
This does set the benchmark for sacrifice high. With
exponential ethical evolution, it is natural to set the mark high for
sacrifice.
Sacrifices often are unbudgeted. Very often the scale of
sacrifice required changes as events progress. Very often such circumstances
are beyond the control of humans. Those sacrificing often go far to make
sacrifices. But not all have the capability to go farther than planned.
Therefore, those who go far are rated and held higher than those, who make
budgeted sacrifices.
Sacrifices come in all different categories and with many
possible fields incl. but not limited to social, financial, physical, psychological
etc.
Amongst all these; the sacrifice of one's own life is still
the 'Supreme Sacrifice'. And all other sacrifices are measured vis-a-vis
supreme sacrifice.
The intensity of the sacrifice made can be assessed by two
measures – first from the extent of non-replenished loss undertaken by the
sacrifice and second the number of people or the size of ambient swath that is
impacted (saved or provided for).
Translated from existing general perceptions, sacrifices can
be measured & compared (socially). The scale of loss of sacrificer is the
primary variable to establish the extent of sacrifice (giving away life being
the supreme most sacrifice), while the number of people or swath of ambience
impacted by the purpose of sacrifice is the other marker. Good examples would
be sacrificing a kidney for one’s kin vis-à-vis sacrificing all of ones
non-replenishable riches irrevocably for one’s community. While the first one
from point of view of loss is a more significant sacrifice, yet the latter
impacts a larger swath of people, who are the purpose of the sacrifice.
Therefore, in public perception, latter is a bigger sacrifice than former.
Therefore, in public perception, the number of people of
environs impacted are more primary to establish the extent of sacrifice, while
the extent of loss incurred in the process of a sacrifice is secondary.
With evolution of human civilization and abundance of
available resources, the properties of oblatory offerings have been changing
substantially.
The purposes for sacrifice all throughout remained
categorized as ‘actual’ and for the ‘vitrified’ (to show to public at large).
The vitrified purpose provided greater public cause, while real cause
invariably was a tangible benefit to the one who provokes sacrifice.
Sacrifice started as an exchange
with the holy and sanctimonious, such that objects or food were offered to the
holy in return for an object of higher value. Thereby, becoming an exchange of
a lower value tangible for another higher value tangible or avoidance of higher
value of loss. Prosperity, fertility, avoidance of destruction of value from
natural calamities, illness etc.
2nd stage of
sacrifice became an exchange of the tangible with the intangible. Thereby,
humans sacrificed objects, goods, food for a more powerful position within
their community. It was a mild trade with the holy to avoid calamities that
inflicted various tribes. The time of sacrifices was synchronized with seasonal
occurrences of such calamities. This was the period of bloodless sacrifices.
3rd stage of
sacrifice was give-away of living being – mainly animals for greater good of
community or self. This still remained an exchange of the tangible for the
intangible. These commenced the period of blooded sacrifices.
It is important to note that the
exchange of tangible with intangible was such that the intangible was
invariably a transitory mechanism, most often that greater intangible that was
acquired on sacrifice was ultimately in both the aforementioned cases,
converted into tangibles. Through these periods of history, while intangibles
existed and were valued, their storage was always in tangibles. There was no
way to store the intangibles.
4th stage was
sacrifice of humans for access to special powers, fertility, long-life,
prosperity for oneself or one’s community.
The progress of real and
vitrified purposes of sacrifices happened in this period. Often such sacrifices
were made by the powerful (kings and priests) from among those people, whom
they detested or feared. The vitrified purposes were always invented to suit
the occasion.
5th stage of
sacrifice, has been elimination of the vitrified purposes of sacrifice, calling
them by their real names – murder at times. In this period, all such tangible
sacrifices including that of humans and animals have been either eliminated by
social change or by law. Tangible offerings of objects and goods continues,
though on decline. Philanthropy, charity, aid and empowerment are more common
purposes for tangible offerings.
6th and the most
modern stage co-existing with the 5th is when the materials of
oblation have themselves slowly altered from tangible to intangibles. This is
concurring with the possibility of storage, recognition & conservation of
intangible values (like good will, reputation etc.) which was not possible
earlier. Avoidance of major community losses has become one of the major most
purpose.
This stage is also characterized
by prevalence and understanding of sacrifice as ‘self-sacrifice’ -
non-replenishing loss that occurs vis-à-vis oneself, instead of other humans,
objects or animals – now characterizes sacrifice. Self-sacrifice has been
prevalent since ancient times. But has become the most ethical mode of sacrifice
with equality of rights prevailing in most of the modern, civilized world.
Therefore, it is no more possible to sacrifice someone else or his interests
for fulfillment of one’s obligation.
The evolution of sacrifice in terms of highest ethical
standards has been gradual unification of the sacrificer (he who sacrifices)
& the sacrifice (object of oblation) – the sacrificer places himself as the
offering and supreme form of sacrifice.
Within current system of modern ethics, it should be
considered fraudulent & cheap to take advantage or benefit from the
sacrifice that was made by someone else. Though this is often so. A good
example is the political and emotional benefit that the progeny of assassinated
leaders tries to draw from the act of assassination of their forefathers.
Factually, assassination is murder not sacrifice, as the sacrificer has no
purpose set for the act. Furthermore, the ownership & recognition of a
sacrifice in the system of current ethics cannot be transferred to anyone else,
but the sacrifice.
It is important to note that often larger units of family
connects are used to claim benefits of an individual’s sacrifice. A good
example is use of the phrase, ‘family sacrificed lives’. This is completely
bogus. For the purpose of claiming recognition of the sacrifice of a person,
the recognition is appropriated through creation of a fraudulent unit (say
family) because very often the sacrifice is not their to refute the claim of
others. Therefore, there can be no recognition accorded to ‘family sacrifice’,
‘community sacrifice’ etc. Sacrifice is only and only personal in the current
system of ethics.
Certain cultures, places and ambiences are more permeable to
the act of sacrifice including supreme sacrifice, owing to sociopsychological
upbringing of the members of such societies. If the general cultural ambience
of a place upholds sacrifice as a great contribution (individual or community)
providing recognition to the sacrificer and his kin & kith, the tendency of
people, especially young to sacrifice their tangibles, intangibles or their
life for a great purpose of future will be higher than those societies, which
are economically resource abundant and have a more aesthetic view of world.
Therefore, consecration of sacrifice for purposes of a community has to be very
carefully sanctified by societies. Sacrifices for individuals are generally
free of any major issues and generally does not create dangerous trends.
Though, even such noncommunity linked sacrifices should also be carefully
monitored.
Conclusively, it is very difficult to colour sacrifices in
one specific colour owing to various attributes that contribute to making of
one.
Purposeful, willful, non-replenishing
losses, made irrevocably, might satisfy all the necessary and sufficient
conditions of being termed as a sacrifice yet might fail to be the ideal form
of sacrifice for lack of emotional connect of the sacrifice. This is when the Sacrificer
does the act of sacrifice not owing to his own volition but owing to emotional
or other pressures, which may or may not surface. This difference can be
demonstrated in two cases, where a person happily donates his kidney to kin or
is pressured emotionally by relatives to do so. Former apparently is ethically
a higher form of sacrifice vis-à-vis the latter.
Purposeful, willful, non-replenishing losses, made
irrevocably, satisfying all necessary and sufficient conditions as also being
endured happily by the Sacrificer could still fail to muster an appreciation
and emotional connect of the benefactor. In such cases there are two kinds of
sacrifices – one that is made anonymously, hence there is no case of appreciation
or emotional connect of the benefactor. But in case a sacrifice is not made
anonymously, an emotional connect and appreciation of sacrifice make the
sacrifice more complete.
When the benefactor of a sacrifice is a community or public
at large, conveying such a sacrifice to the public is important and needed, so
that the result or purpose for which the sacrifice(s) is(are) made are valued
by the public.
Examples
