I like your sense of humor, but consider a different name. Beowulf was a guy who let himself die rather than be a risk to his people.

Your solipsism is showing.

@TimTuolomne
I was of course kidding ... mostly ...
Although in terms of philosophy, about 8 or 9 I really did honestly wonder whether it was all a dream I was having or maybe I was a dream someone else was having ... maybe even this “God” guy was the dreamer ... shortly afterwards I began to wonder, given the basics of atomic structure whether I had entire galaxies in my closet or ... maybe we were just some part of a kid’s baseball in his closet.

As to the altruistic aspect of dying for the sake of others ... I would ... and would do so willingly ... for those I determine to be “My People” ... but only in a kneejerk reactionary manner for a stranger ... for one not of “My Own”.

I’ve done LOTS of seriously dangerous stuff in my life ... not that I was looking for “Danger” but because it was interesting, exciting. Oftentimes I don’t consider the danger until afterwards. I’ve had people tell me I could’ve “killed myself” (or wound up dead) ... well, yeah, I suppose that’s part of the excitement ... when you’re standing there realizing that ...
I’m not in fear or thrall of the concept of death. Actually been there and done that (pretty close) with the scars to show for it. I’d rather go hard and fast than to clutch desperately at those final straws.

I would note that Beowulf didn’t “sacrifice” himself in some altruistic manner either. He died as a result of wounds received in Conflict ... in Battle ... the entire tale is that of a Bold and Daring Warrior and he died the death of a Warrior. As they often say in the military; There are Bold Soldiers and there are Old Soldiers but there are No Old Bold Soldiers (or damn few anyway)

@Bay0Wulf, Thank you for defending us.

The human specie could not exist without the variety of personality traits that compose it. There are warriors, pacifiers, drivers, nurturers, adventurers, homebodys, the bold and the timid. Each one provides niche services that have allowed us to adapt to changing conditions. Thank you for your contribution.

@Bay0Wulf I have to wonder which you think is the most natural; the conditioned sacrifice of the warrior for the tribe/clan/nation or that knee-jerk sacrifice for a stranger. I personally don't see that one has any kind of "validity" that could be considered more legitimate than that of the other. And I also would add that from my perspective- and I am most emphatically NOT a warrior- the warrior's profession is one whose very nature is sacrifice; the sacrifice of the safety and warmth of hearth and home in order to guarantee that same safety for the tribe/clan/nation as a whole.

And death may not be the ultimate sacrifice either. Too many warriors have made the sacrifice of their personal comfort, safety and even much of their sanity only to return to a "woke" and disdainful reception from people who "feel" that returning warriors deserve no special deference beyond what we might show the university groundskeeper. We send young men to foreign lands to obediently perform acts of- at least to the "woke" - unspeakable brutality... and then condemn them in public displays of ingratitude. In my mind the warrior is one of the last truly noble professions left in our land. Is it any wonder the veteran suicide rate has been alarmingly high? These are just thoughts of someone who is not a warrior but has a deep respect for them.

@Geofrank
The “Warrior” is, to my mind, more valid ... in that protection of family, clan, tribe and (maybe) nation are all manifestations of the primal need to preserve Primacy ... furthering one’s Gene Pool.
“Knee Jerk” (Reflexive) protection of an unknown ... a stranger ... is simply a Reflex Action. Where one is trained to react in a certain way to certain stimulus. To lose one’s own life in such a manner does not further any goal or need the person may have had.
Standing Armies are a completely different thing. In the training a few “warriors” may be uncovered but most are not “Natural Warriors”. In the Military one is trained into more of a “Pack” thought process where you protect each other so that they might protect you.

As to the People who have never been combatants and yet owe their very existence and lifestyle to the Men and Women that they blithely ignore or castigate ...

I honestly believe there should be TWO Types of Citizenship ... Citizen One who has Served Honorably and who can therefore Hold High Government Office and Vote ... and Citizen Two who has Never Served and therefore has all the Rights of Citizenship but is NOT Permitted to Hold High Government Office or Vote.
However, I don’t think “Service” need be synonymous with “Military”. I am a proponent of the idea that ALL Citizens should “Serve” a two year term in Government Service beginning with Military Style “Boot Camp”.

It might be obvious I don’t think much of Peoples’ Opinions who haven’t Served in some capacity.