I thought X's point was well taken: she didn't suggest that soldiers want to die, only that, as you said, they do their duty. They do it for a reason: because they believe that they are protecting something of immediate value to them. The attitude of the soldiery toward combat, and the prospect of death, is often directly shaped by the degree to which this belief is plausible, as is often noted in comparisons between front-line morale in Vietnam and, say, World War II.
Wouldn't you agree that the willingness of citizens to volunteer as soldiers, and the willingness of soldiers to take risks "above and beyond the call of duty", is to some extent shaped by the degree of perceived direct threat to their homeland, families, etc.?
Re. the hypo -- there was no indication either of the two have to die; just mate or refuse to mate.
This is of course true, and the comparison is strained. But if I recall correctly, it was you who made the comparison, not X.
To go back to the hypothetical, it would be interesting if someone had suggested an that an extreme sacrifice would be appropriate to save an endangered non-human species, then balked at suggesting the same degree of sacrifice for a human. Nobody on the thread did. |
