Sacrificial death legitimates a cause only if that cause is worth endorsing

Evidence

As I.T. rightly argues, the “people died for the vote” line is utterly facile. Soldiers in the Wehrmacht died for the glories of the Fatherland — does that mean I should become a Nazi? Catholics burned for their belief in transubstantiation: should I then repent and go to Mass on Sunday? Plus, I think I’m on fairly safe ground, really, with the conjecture that no one, but no one, died for the opportunity to “choose” between Blair and Howard. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1397

Categorization

• CANDY: A crisp, argument-ending rejoinder usable in conversation: the reductio that martyrs’ deaths prove nothing about which politics you should adopt.
• XREF: connects to: Policy-caused deaths must count as evidence against the policy — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 1599; Extreme acts of self-sacrifice can function as argument rather than abandonment of it — Jamal Awil, The Whispering Archive: The Complete…, 569; Utilitarian consequentialism can justify killing by its aggregate social benefits — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1874 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Extreme acts of self-sacrifice can function as argument rather than abandonment of it #expands (0.80) — Jamal Awil, The Whispering Archive, 569
• Believing a cause is moral converts self-censure into self-approval #corroborates (0.80) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 400
• Utilitarian consequentialism can justify killing by its aggregate social benefits #qualifies (0.75) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1874