This past year I have been somewhat troubled in realizing how sacrificing for a greater good can be little more than wasted energy while trying to achieve some delusional end. It has made me question my own assumptions about the role that sacrifice plays in our lives, both in a practical and in a religious aspect. Being a Christian, I have been troubled by how religious beliefs throughout human history have attributed a causal relationship between sacrificial offerings and irrelevant events. Many see this as one of the follies of most if not all religious beliefs. For instance, the human sacrifices of the ancient Aztec civilization clearly had no real impact on the rising of the sun. Why then should the sacrifices required by religions today be any less ridiculous than those required in ancient times?
In order to address this concern, let’s first consider some possible explanations for the natural origins of sacrifice, and then delve into the subjective and objective purposes one would have in offering up a sacrifice.
One of the evolutionary explanations for our instinct to sacrifice is that the circuitry of our brain descends from lizards that lost their tails when predators attacked. Losing a tail is preferable to losing one’s own life, and thus ancient creatures developed the instinct to sacrifice something to distract predators. I am not totally certain that this instinct is truly ingrained in our biological circuitry, but humans certainly understand how to apply this strategy. If it is ingrained in our brains, then in the face of real or imaginary danger, our reaction is to do something, anything, in an attempt to distract the predator or ward off the threat.
Another explanation for humans’ instinct to sacrifice is the social application that evolved from ancient tribal interactions. As our ancestors hunted and gathered, they realized that by sharing their surplus with the tribe, they would build trust with tribe mates. A tribe mate’s sacrifice of his surplus from a hunt could be compensated if at a later date after an unsuccessful hunt, another tribe mate offers the surplus of his successful hunt. Working together in teams required great sacrifice in order to be successful, and as humans developed greater trust within their own tribes, they diversified tasks and sacrificed for the good of the tribe. The reward was greater prosperity and harmony.
The final underlying reason for this instinct is one prevalent to several species of the animal kingdom. It is the sacrifice of present consumption to save for future consumption. We do this when we save or invest with the hope that putting off consumption during times of plenty will be worth it when times of scarcity arrive. This is arguably also the origin of religious practices such as Lent. By abstaining from a particular activity, one may free up resources to devote time to more wholesome activities or self-improvement.
There may be more origins to the human impulse to sacrifice, but I think it is safe to say that these are the three original objectives of sacrifice and are inherently instinctive in humans:
1. Distraction of a threat
2. Building trust in a complex social order
3. Delayed consumption
There is a fourth possible reason for sacrifice, but it is dependent on these three original objectives and is found primarily in religious practices. As humans developed in complexity, they developed traditions that were carried down from generation to generation. The original cause of ancient traditions is not always known, but they typically reflect some truth about our species. As humans discovered the importance of sacrifice, it became an integral part of their traditions. Thousands of humans across generations experienced years of famine, drought, natural disasters, tribal warfare, and migration to harsher climates. Those who placed sacrifice at the center of their tradition survived and tended to pass on that emphasis to subsequent generations. Some sacrificial practices thus served as a reminder of the importance of sacrifice to the health of human society, leading to its religious significance.
So the fourth objective of sacrifice is dependent on the first three and is most commonly found in religious traditions:
4. Reminder of the need to sacrifice
Not all forms of sacrifice fall exclusively into just one of these categories. There may be some sacrifices that fall into multiple. How then do we differentiate between a “good” sacrifice and a “bad”, a legitimate one or a delusional one? Humans clearly saw the benefit of incorporating it into their traditions, yet some of these practices led to destruction and death. What separates the ancient Aztecan human sacrifices from giving a donation to your church?
Subjective vs. Objective
The purpose of sacrifice is to achieve some greater goal that transcends the immediate need of the thing to be sacrificed. I have already established that there are possibly three primary instinctive purposes as well as one sociological purpose. If the greater goal is not achieved, then logically the sacrifice has failed in its purpose.
We can further evaluate the goals of sacrifice with two lenses: the subjective lens and the objective lens.
Humans value things differently from one another; in other words, there is subjective value. I might want a sleek sports car, but you may prefer the old truck. With these subjective values in mind, we would save differently to achieve our unique goals. Similarly, in regards to sacrifice, Andy may see value in sacrificing something in order to achieve some greater personal goal, while Nicole may see that sacrifice as foolish. But who is Nicole to judge Andy’s sacrifice? If Andy values achieving that greater goal more than the thing he wishes to sacrifice, he is in the best position to make that decision. Using a subjective lens, Andy’s sacrifice is perfectly rational.
However, when a sacrifice is made with the intention of achieving some goal outside of the scope of the individual, then we can analyze the effectiveness of the sacrifice in achieving that goal. These goals can be appropriately categorized as objective.
Admittedly, not all sacrifices fall solely in these two categories of having only objective or subjective goals. There is arguably a spectrum where a sacrifice may be partially subjectively driven and partially objectively driven. However, for sacrifices that fall squarely in the objective category, we can effectively determine whether they are legitimate or delusional.
This is where we can analyze the difference between the Aztecan human sacrifice and the donation to your church. The Aztecan sacrifices were primarily objective in nature. The purpose of sacrificing humans was to make sure the sun would rise the next day. While one could argue the case for the subjective value individuals placed on these sacrifices, there was clearly no causality between human sacrifice and the rising of the sun. Since the sacrifice had no causality, we could deem this sacrifice as delusional. The people performing the sacrifice might feel they are doing the right thing, but they are merely using resources (in this case human capital) to achieve nothing.
Contrast that with donating to your church. Your donation clearly has a causal relationship to the operation of the church. Without donations, there is no building, no printed materials, and no pastor. This passes the objective lens test, and you are thus not delusional in donating to your church. An outsider may point out that your desire to donate to a church is delusional, but who are they to judge? You place subjective value on the church. If you value it, then what you sacrifice to make sure it is still operating is your business.
It is important to distinguish between the offering and the goal. Sacrifice consists of both. Two sacrifices can have the same offering but different goals, thus one could be delusional, and the other legitimate. Take for instance two girls who are addicted to their phones and both resolve to throw their phones in a lake as a sacrifice. The first girl wants to end world hunger, and thinks that throwing her phone in a lake will directly contribute to ending world hunger. The second girl wants to improve her lifestyle and habits, and thinks that by throwing her phone in the lake, she can abandon her phone-addiction and focus on self-improvement.
Which of the two girls is delusional? You would probably agree with me that the first is. There is no direct causal relationship between throwing a phone in the lake and ending world hunger. Because the desired goal is outside the scope of the individual, it is appropriate to apply the objective lens to the sacrifice. The second girl is making a sacrifice that affects only her. While we could objectively observe whether the phone-offering actually makes a difference in her life, only she can determine whether it was worth it to throw her phone in the lake. Thus, we can only judge the legitimacy of the second girl’s sacrifice with the subjective lens. The objective lens cannot apply.
In summary, all humans place subjective value in their sacrifice. When the goal of the sacrifice exceeds the scope of the individual, the legitimacy of that sacrifice can by analyzed through an objective lens. If there is a causal relationship between the offering and the objective goal, the sacrifice is legitimate and rational. In the absence of a causal relationship between an offering and an objective goal, the sacrifice is irrational. Relationships between offerings and subjective goals can only be determined on the individual level.
With the objective and subjective lenses, we can better discern between legitimate sacrifices and delusional sacrifices. This will help us abandon fruitless endeavors and focus our efforts on legitimate goals.