Do you guys agree with this theory? Which in part says things like, we hold needs like eating, breathing and safety in a higher priority to needs like morality and lack of prejudice. Here's a link to the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs . What about those who self-immolate, it's seems to contradict this theory in my understanding, becuase they are usually drawing on their morality when they self-immolate, and bypass the base needs. They are willing to die for something. I once read a quote by I think MLK jr. which said something like only a life in which your willing to die for something is worth living. What do you think? (Also, Do any of you know the word for self immolation which specifically refers to self-immolation by burning, I know self-immolation in itself can refer to burning but I think there is another word which only refers to burning but I can't find it, if any of you know it please share, thanks) P.S. - let me know if you think this topic is mawkish.
Maslow's theory, like any theory, applies under a set of prescribed conditions, principally that the subject wishes to survive. That covers over 99% of human behavior, but you are dipping into the fractional percent outside that behavioral model. Just as Newton's Laws of Motion break down as you deal with relative velocities approaching that of the light, Maslow's theory does not fully apply to martyrdom or other forms of self-destructive behavior. The further outside the survival model the behavior gets, the less Maslow's model will dominate the observed behavior. As for another word besides self-immolation, I'm coming up blank.
I sort of agree with that statement, as, and you can call me selfish here, I would not die for anything or one. I put my life and my survival above that of everyone else around me. Now I am not saying my life is worth more than yours, but to me, that is the one I would save first, mine. However, the situation would change if it was my life alone, versus that of twenty people. Like if I killed myself, 20 people could live, then I think I would seriously consider taking my life, as 20 lives outweights one. Also, there is the thing of, if I had children, would my meaternal bond with them make me put their life before mine when it comes to life and death. To be honest with you, I do not think it something I can comment on until I came to the situation, but I do know that if faced with the choice, Either I die, or the random person standing oppsoite me does, I say good riddance to them.
The idea is the establishes of culture and life as a general whole. IE: Only after your belly is full do you think about clothing. Only after you have clothing do you think about shelter. Only after shelter do you think about sex. In many cases the people that have chosen martyrdoms have already gratified at least the primary basics of this chain - or are facing loosing these primary needs. IE: Live Free or Die is established that people do not want anyone to take away their right to life and liberty (Liberty to own land: IE: Shelter/Food/Clothing) In many cases people die for ideals, those ideals being to provide these basic needs to others that they may care about more then themselves IE: Their Children, Significant Other, Parents, Etc. Does it make sense now? Also it is a Theory let us not forget that.
I think the less selfish more giving in society do approximate the HON construct as they mature, age and evolve intellectually, but not everyone. If so, why do billionaires continue to strive for their next billion instead of focusing on the reward from helping others. As wussy as that sounds, I personally have learned over five decades that Mark Twain had it right, you never hear the last words from a dying man, "I wish I would have worked harder."
As for the psychology, I'm not sure I agree with what I read in that article. Morality and creativity are put at the top and it is said that the lower "deficiency needs" must be met first. But, for example; > These are present in youngsters who may not be sexually active yet. > Morality can be inculcated and people may be 'taught' morals without first having a high self esteem >Young children can be very creative without having a sense of achievement. And it seems over-obvious to put things like breathing and eating in there, where's the sense in that? Of course we have to do that first. Even people who commit suicide have been doing it up to that point. "Everybody has to eat". I think the MLK jr quote is approx. "If you haven't found something worth dying for, you aren't fit to be living". Personally I think that's a horrendous point of view. As for the immolating word, I don't know either!
As a teacher, I agree with the basic premise that basic needs have to be met before learning can take place. This is part of the reason why the Federal government has put so much money into free and subsidized breakfast and lunch in our public schools. You can't teach kids who are hungry and it's appalling how many kids come to school without having had breakfast. I work as a volunteer at a local food bank and was appalled by a discussion I recently had with one parent. A man who came looking for food, told me that he was unemployed and three months behind in his rent. He had a wife and two little ones to support ... so what was he doing to deal with the situation? He was boozing it up. Some people should really not be parents ...
