There are three different questions that can be raised in relation to the concept of sacrifice.
1. Must sacrifice be always about giving up something that one values the most without expecting a return?
There are a few reasons as to why the above question rises. One of them is because in because the main definition of sacrifice centers on the aspect of giving up something of value for the sake of the good of another person. However, there are some contradictions that can be seen. Some circumstances, one sacrifices a thing because at the end of it all there is again. Jesus, for example, on dying on the cross and giving out his life so as to save the sinners had a gain in return. The gain here was that of salvation. Because of his death, human beings got to be saved, hence fulfilling the will of God to save human beings. Besides the above, the Bible talks about giving out oneself as a living sacrifice. This means wholly accepting God and being saved. Although one sacrifices his or her life without an instant gain, at the end of it all, Christians believe that as a result of giving up earthly pleasures, they will eventually inherit the kingdom of God. The meaning of sacrifice as giving up without expecting a return, therefore, rises question since there are concrete examples that can prove the fact that there is always a return for different sacrifices. The question is raised with the aim of understanding the probable exceptions or contradictions that surround sacrifice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
2. Does it hold that Rawls' principles of justice do not apply to the ideal conception of sacrifice due to the fact they fit a perfect description of justice?
The above question is raised since in a personal opinion, it is almost impossible to translate justice to sacrifice. Although justice is an entitlement to a person, sacrifice is in most circumstances as a result of giving up something for the sake of the other person. Even in an ideal justice system, intakes individuals get what they deserve not what another person takes upon themselves to give up for the sake of the good of the other person. Also, the question is also an interesting to cover since no an ideal justice system exists. Making the argument, hence, it is difficult to support the reasoning behind it because it is even difficult to put sacrifice in an ideal justice system. If Rawls' principle ware to hold, the meaning of sacrifice would all be lost or even confusing since it would have diverse descriptions.
3. Can the argument that it is right to vindicate the meaning of sacrifice using utilitarian and Rawls principles hold?
The above question arises due to the fact that Jean-Pierre Dupuy, in the article provided uses the two principles to defend the idea of sacrifice. Counter-arguments can, however, be raised as a result of the different dimensions of sacrifice that in some cases do not apply to both principles. Although there are aspects in utilitarian as well as rawls’ principle that can be used to explain sacrifice, the thesis statement presented by the author is supported with the above argument, which, in a personal opinion makes it bias. Besides the above, the above question is asked with the aim of understanding how the sacrifice rationale can be explained from different viewpoints without losing its main meaning.
