> The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version

>> This is incoherent.

The living cannot - and don't - live for the dead, or the causes that the dead chose to die for. Dying for a cause doesn't make the cause nobler. It just takes you out of the conversation. That's why suicide is, by definition, incoherent.

First, not every suicide is "for cause". Minority of them are.

Second, many living in fact do value self sacrifice.

Third, the "for cause" suicides are fairly often organized by living in the hope the living will get what they want. The one killing himself is agreeing to do it on behalf of other living. You may or may not disagree with cause, it does not really matter.

This is a view that reduces humanity to ants, or bots, or Borg. Especially divorced from any particular ideology or necessity, what you are advocating is the treatment of individuals as disposable units, directed to die by a faceless and unaccountable power structure. That was the case with the Kamikaze, and it's the case with jihadis now. Interestingly, it only seems to happen in the service of totalitarian ideologies. Revolutionaries who advocate for human rights or democracy don't tend to obliterate themselves. They want to be around to take care of their families.

In short, your view doesn't just prioritize the group over the individual - it prioritizes the worst possible groups.