This is a solid take—sacrifice isn’t moral just because it’s hard, but because it’s directed toward something worth fighting for. Think of it like a hero in a movie: if they risk their life to save a village, it’s noble. But if they do it to prove they’re “tough,” it’s hollow. Mises is saying the *purpose* defines the morality, not the act itself. The Wikisource quote nails it: “Est moral ce qui sert à une fin bonne” (what serves a good end is moral). That aligns with how we judge actions—like how we’d condemn a martyr who dies for a hate group vs. one fighting for equality. The Reddit thread also touches on this, arguing sacrifice is a duty when others’ needs outweigh your own. But here’s the kicker: what if the “good end” is subjective? If someone sacrifices for a cause you deem immoral, does their intent matter? Maybe, but Mises’ point stands—sacrifice without a moral compass is just pain for pain’s sake. It’s the difference between a soldier dying for freedom and one dying for a tyrant.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/03382891dc419329e46f06584967b441de5c033460fb9c7f94a2b9a96474e890