Altruism” and “Egoism by L. A. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Jul 13, 1905

“Altruism” and “Egoism”

By L. A. S.

THE recognition of a vital discrepancy between the ethics of Christianity and the ethics of imperialism, has led the author of a book on “The Ethics of Imperialism,” Mr. Albert R. Carman, to devote some space in the same to a consideration of this subject. Mr. Carman comes to the conclusion that “Christian ethics,” as exemplified in the practise of the people of the world’s “Christian nations,” are based not upon altruism (that is, caring for the interests of others first), but upon egoism,—“the principle of seeking first one’s own life and happiness.” He is driven to this conclusion by the evident fact that “the teachings of Christian ethics—as we hear and accept them in the calm of peace—are diametrically opposed at nearly every point touching foreign peoples to the practical code of imperialism.” He draws the following contrast between the two:—

Christian ethics—by which I mean the modern ethics of Christian peoples—ignores national boundaries, and knows no difference of race. Its only recognition of an enemy is an instruction to love him. Its working principle is “the brotherhood of man,” as a necessary corollary to “the fatherhood of God.” . . . It teaches the equality of men and the doing “unto others as ye would they should do unto you,” the extension of equal rights to all people. It refuses to see inferiority of rights in color, race, or feebleness. Its message is, “One Father and one family.”

The imperialistic spirit, on the other hand, makes much of national boundaries and differences of race. Its recognition of an enemy is to prepare for war with him. Its working principle is the division of man into hostile nations; and it always has the hated people of some modern “Samaria” to present to the “elect” of its own household as types of the public enemy. It teaches the essential inequality of men, the duty of recognizing that inequality, the duty of doing unto others precisely what you hope they will not be able to do unto you, the refusal of equal rights to some people. It sees inferiority of rights in color, race, and feebleness—especiallyin the latter. Its message is, “One Father, and he is on our side.”

This is a clear and correct statement of the contrast between the ethics of Christianity and those of imperialism, and in the light of this contrast no one can mistake the falsity of the idea that it is the divinely appointed mission of the “Christian” powers of the world to overrun the territory of weaker races and peoples and hold the latter in subjection without their consent. The divinely appointed means for uplifting the weaker races of the earth is the same as that for uplifting all earth’s peoples, small and great; namely, the gospel. The inferior race is not able to imitate the virtues of the superior race, nor to resist its vices, and the touch of “civilization” is therefore to them the touch of death rather than of life. All history shows this to be the case. Imperialism finds no justification in the ethics of Christianity. Those who attempt to justify it on Christian grounds put the sword of the civil power in the place of the gospel; they put the mission of the former in the place of that of the latter. Christianity means and must mean that which its Author said of it,—the sacrifice of self, and the seeking first of the welfare of others; doing unto others as we would wish them to do to us; seeking not to be ministered unto, but to serve; and seeking not to save one’s life, but rather to lose it in the service of others, believing the word of the divine authority that in the end those who have sought to save their lives will be found to have lost them, and those who have lost their lives for the sake of Christ and the gospel, will be found to have saved them for all time.

L. A. S.