Scott Atran hypothesizes that in the name of "sacred values," human beings make "costly sacrifices," including dying. We die and kill in the name of "transcendent ideals." In the Middle-East, suicide bombers kill themselves (and others) to prove the depth of their commitment to their sacred values, claiming their actions are a "sublime matter of moral virtue."

But the nature of the sacred ideal is fungible. Each society creates its own idea of what is sacred then kills and dies in the name of proving the truth of this sacred idea or object. The idea or object might be called Germany or Communism or Allah or whatever. Each society has its druthers. 

Culture is a social construction. Ideologies are social constructions. We learned this a long time ago. But what makes a social construction "real?" How do we prove the truth of an ideology? By killing and dying for it.

But dying is the core mechanism not killing. Someone has to die for something. In order for someone to die, someone must kill this human being. To make an ideology real or sacred, someone has to die for it.

"Killing" is not a biological drive or an "aggressive instinct." We kill in order to create death. And the purpose of death is to confirm the reality of a sacred ideal. It's not particularly relevant who dies for the ideal. It can be one of our own people or an enemy. person.

But someone has to die somewhere...in order to create a transcendent ideal or sacred object.

Without a transcendent ideal or sacred object, things fall apart. This is what's happening now. The world is falling apart. LIVE WITH IT.

Richard Koenigsberg