I almost completely disagree with "everyone operates within some framework of unprovable [moral] dogmas", but I don't completely disagree. I think the potential for mind-changing debate about moral matters - some of it inexplicit, but still rational - is enormous: and that the dogmatic cores of almost everyone's moral worldviews are, in modern times, practically identical, or close enough to be compatible.

More to the point, you can refrain from being unnecessarily dogmatic. As I'm sure you do really. But that means anticipation of death, to wipe out your ideas, shouldn't diminish your will to filter them through argument or thought. It just acts as a safety mechanism against your possibly losing your grip on rationality and becoming an intransigent old nuisance, I suppose.

So the second point is that self-sacrifice is less expensive for the mortal. I guess that could be seen as a rather cold fact that a mortal person is less valuable. But immortal people could be hindered by being all neurotic about risks to their lives, if that even is how we make decision about self-sacrifice and mortal danger (however mild - germs?) ... but I suspect that isn't a calculation we'd do, even if immortal. I suspect the basis for these decisions is something different. This makes me scratch my head, I may come back to it.