There are some things it would be better to die than do he idea of right and wrong has been around forever. The ideas usually change from person T to person, but generally, there are some things that the rational majority all agree are evil deeds that should never be done. The focus of this paper is to judge whether or not there are things that it is better to die than to do, as well as the idea of what would make something so terrible that one would rather die than commit such an act. he importance of the idea that there are things that it is better to die than to do is extremely T relevant to the text. The text's main focus is the ethics of humanity and what is right and wrong regarding people's actions. The question of what it is better to die than do is an important distinction on what actions are too evil for one to do as without realizing or clarifying this distinction it’s hard for one to argue what acts are too far across the line to be done. Aristotle believed that dying may not be the worst thing as being happy and dying would be better than dying well committing a horrific act. This comes from the thinking that their lives would be changed forever which leads them to an existence of self-loathing.“Yet it is clear that it is possible for these descendants to be of varying degrees of remove from their ancestors. Indeed, it would be strange if even the dead person should share in reversals and become now happy, now wretched again.” (Aristotle 1100a26). There are however some questions that the text does ask regarding this issue, one such example is when Aristotle wrote, ““But one must return to the perplexity previously mentioned, for perhaps what is now being sought might also be contemplated on the basis of it.”(Aristotle 1100a30) The background to this quote is that Aristotle was focusing on the fact that even if someone who died came back to life and they were happy when they died there was the possibility that they could be corrupted and evil over time. This raises the question that if one does not die well they are noble then will they become corrupted or could they stay moral in their decisions even after doing something that is morally wrong? They could become corrupted by many different situations or things leading them to become a different version of themselves. It also raises another question of what must be on the line for one to rather die then survive. How many people must be saved or what sort of cruel act must be committed for a person to willingly sacrifice themself for the greater good of the world? It also asks the question that if one is not to sacrifice themself in a necessary situation would their life be worse off, this could either be through their guilt for the choice that they made or the ridicule of others in response to their selfishness. he outside problem that I am using is the Chernobyl 3. These workers realized that they T were the only ones who would be able to turn off a nuclear reactor that if left unchecked would cause millions to die. “Nuclear physicist VassiliNesterenkodeclared that the blast would have had a force of 3-5 megatons leaving much of Europe uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years.” (Sky History) The three workers realized this and decided to fix the problem even though they knew the radiation would kill them. This sort of self-sacrifice is an example of how there are some things that it is better to die than do because if they did not go down there choosing certain death this would lead to death and destruction on a far greater scale. This leaved them with a moral dilemma as they realized that they had the skills to p revent this from occuring but it would lead to their certain death as the radiation was far greater than anyone could survive. They realized that the cost to others if they did not fulfill this mission was far greater than the cost to themselves so they decided to go down and fix the problem with the valves.“T hey knew exactly therisks involved and were prepared to give up everything in order to save the lives of an incomprehensible number of people.”(Sky history) Their sacrifice was done because they knew that it was better for them to sacrifice their lives than to not fix the problem and let thousandss of others die because of their self-interest. There were also many others who cleaned up the aftereffect of the accident who sacrificed their lives as well to minimize the damage that could be caused showing that others had a similar idea on ethics showing the widespread general morality of humans.“They significantly helped to limit the short and long-term damage that the disaster had caused but thousands of them paid the ultimate price.” (Sky History) This disaster was a perfect example of how often times people will choose to sacrifice their own lives for the greater good of humanity as they know that it’s the right thing to do. he text and the real-life event are very similar in their main message which helps bring out T the specific points in both texts. In the text, they like to focus on the point that there are certain situations where people should do what is the most ethical action towards the situation no matter what the harm to their self is. This lines up with what the divers in the Chernobyl scenario did as they were all aware that they would die if they were to go down there due to the high levels of radiation that was present in the area but they knew that they had to or countless others would die. This situation also helped bring out the idea in the text that asked whether or not it was better for the divers to do this act and die than live on without doing it. The question is hard to answer as it can not be known what would happen as it’s merely speculation. However, it can be presumed that it would have been hard for them to live with themselves after a situation like that where they knew that they could have saved possibly millions of lives but instead to put their own lives ahead of these innocent others. The real-life example also helps to look into the text as it helps bring out the idea that others will often make the ethical decision in tough situations as they know that the right decision is one that others with common sense would make as their sense of self and morality wouldn’t allow them to make a different decision then the ethical one which is only solidified the further into the text one looks. I n conclusion the idea that there are some things that it is better to die than do is something that most ethical people can agree on. It is very prevalent In Aristotles Ethics where there are many references to what is ethically right and what others should do if theyre faced with an ethical dillemma It’s a very impotant art of the text as it outlines the idea of self sacrifice and that no one person is more important than the greater good. They must focus on the idea that it is whats best for humanity and the states that people reside in that takes priority over any one persons self interest or even something as extreme as their life if it comes down to it. This is also prevalent in the real world as there are countless situations where people have shown time and time again that people are often willing to sacrifice their own selves for the greater good of others. There would be no idea of ethics if there was no sacrifice that came with it as if there was nothing that people would have to give up they would often make the e thical choice as it is only rational for one to do so. This however does not happen in life or the novel as it is hard for people to do what is necessary or ethical because of things such as self-interest, pride, or their own greed. Biography ristotle, Robert C. Bartlett, and Susan D. Collins.Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: University of A Chicago Press, 2011. “ The Real Story of the Chernobyl Divers.” Sky HISTORY TV channel. Accessed April 4, 2024. https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-real-story-of-the-chernobyl-divers#:~:text=If%20the%20t hree%20courageous%20men,hundreds%20of%20thousands%20of%20years.
