> Here's the thought behind the question.
> If the things you're living your life for aren't worth dying for, then perhaps they're not worth living for either. If you're living for things not worth living for, perhaps it's not really living.
>

I would think the implication goes the other way. If the things in your life aren't worth living for, they're not worth dying for either. Plenty of things in life, though, *are* worth living for but not worth dying for. The question then becomes: can you live with only this class of things that are worth living for, but not dying for? I don't see why not.

Also, I guess we're assuming "worth living for" involves the welfare of others. In a strict self-utilitarian view, something's generally worth dying for only as an alternative to (the prospect of) living with a sufficiently high level of pain (on average) from that point on. I think this would make it less likely you'd have something worth dying for.