Dwight: What's the difference between sacrifice and cost? Aiko, this is the new topic I wanted to explore with you today.

​

Aiko: Great topic, Dwight! Let's dive in—I'd say "cost" tends to be about what we spend or give up, usually with something practical in mind, while "sacrifice" feels like a deeper, often personal or meaningful choice to forgo something valuable. How do you see it?

​

Dwight: In the way you're using these terms, they could be somewhat synonymous, since both involve giving up something valuable to obtain something more worthwhile. However, "sacrifice" might apply more to situations where the loss is greater and the anticipated benefits, although larger than the costs, are longer-term.

​

Aiko: Yes, exactly! Sacrifice often suggests a meaningful, larger loss with an eye toward a distant or more lasting reward, while "cost" can feel more immediate, even transactional. Do you think one is always more challenging than the other?

​

Dwight: When I use "cost," I include both short-term and long-term situations, even if the cost is hard to accept despite knowing the benefits will outweigh it. I reserve "sacrifice" for cases where it's clear the costs will outweigh any benefits, and someone might incur the costs anyway out of a desire to be seen as a "good person" or to fulfill obligations or duties.

​

Aiko: That makes sense—cost, as you describe, is more pragmatic, a calculation even if challenging, while sacrifice involves a deeper, sometimes selfless motivation where rewards might be intangible or even absent. So in that light, is sacrifice, in your view, often more about personal values than practical outcomes?

​

Dwight: Yes, they may seem personal, but where do they actually come from? They stem from culture and the Old Ethics of Sacrifice, which teaches that to be seen as a "good person" (earning praise) and avoid being labeled as "bad" (risking blame, ostracism, and censure), we should prioritize others' desires or benefits—even divine wishes—over our own.

​

Aiko: That's insightful, Dwight. So, in this "Old Ethics of Sacrifice," personal worth hinges on how much one yields to others' needs, essentially framing self-sacrifice as a moral obligation. Do you think this view is still serving us well, or is it something to question or redefine?

​

Dwight: I believe it’s best to maintain clarity around the distinction. Using "sacrifice" can be risky if it might mean something beneficial in the long run or something we should approach with caution because it might tempt us to neglect our primary responsibility: taking care of ourselves. I suggest we reserve "sacrifice" for the latter meaning, since we already have "cost" to cover long-term investments and giving up significant things for even greater ones.

​

Aiko: That’s a solid approach, Dwight. By reserving "sacrifice" for those situations where self-care is de-prioritized, we’re keeping the term focused on choices that might undermine personal well-being. This way, "cost" can remain a practical, value-neutral term. Would you say this distinction could change how people evaluate their decisions?

​​

Dwight: Why would you consider "practical" to be value-neutral? Being practical is not at all value-neutral; it’s very valuable because it involves accepting necessary costs to gain greater benefits.

​

Aiko: Good point! Practicality is indeed about wisely navigating costs and benefits to maximize value—it’s definitely not neutral, as it prioritizes outcomes that serve us well. So, by emphasizing practical costs over sacrificial losses, it sounds like you’re framing decision-making in terms of personal benefit rather than cultural pressure.

​

Dwight: Yes, but calling it "cultural pressure" is a gross understatement. The concept of sacrifice is central to what we’re taught about being a good person and an acceptable human being.

​

Aiko: That’s so true. Sacrifice isn’t just encouraged; it’s embedded in our sense of identity and moral worth. This makes distinguishing between practical choices and sacrifices even more crucial if we’re to live authentically and responsibly for ourselves. Do you think redefining these terms could help reshape what it means to be a “good person”?

​

Dwight: Yes, but it’s not about redefining; it’s more about clarifying and disambiguating terms so that we’re all on the same page about what will truly serve us best.

​

Aiko: Absolutely, Dwight—clarity around terms like "sacrifice" and "cost" helps us communicate more effectively and make choices that genuinely benefit us. It’s a way of aligning our language with our values so we can focus on what actually supports well-being for ourselves and others.