*The argument would seem to be this. (1) Everyone belongs to some group. (2) So, everything so-called individual sacrifice is done for the sake of some group. *This is clearly such a non-sequitor that it cannot have been Eric's argument; therefore, I must not have understood what he wants to say. _____ Not my argument at all. I was responding specifically to RK's "irrational sacrifice" of soldiers in warfare. My point was that RK's thesis views soldiers ONLY as individuals, for whom such sacrifice is clearly irrational in that it runs counter to their individual best interests. It was a mistake, in my view, to examine soldiers in wartime SOLELY as a bunch of individuals. Dying in defense of one's country may be an irrational act for the individual, but the same act may be quite rational for the state that is defending itself in war. When troops refuse self-sacrifice--and nations have never "awakened from the nightmare of history" simultaneously--the nations in question are defeated, conquered, partitioned, or destroyed. Hence [with rewrites] imagine:"Trench warfare at Somme. Everyone walks away. They gave a war and nobody stayed for it. So what do these individuals do? Do they return to "their countries"? And what is that? What is "their country"? These are pure individuals now; they have no national identification. What do they do? Make up their own individual language and customs and claim a twenty-foot square parcel of earth as their own individual country? "That's the fallacy we are projecting here--that of isolated rational individuals who somehow can exist without a nation. It's as if people's hands only had palms but no back of the hand. Doesn't exist. People are individuals-in-a-nation, not pure individuals." Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html