CIHM Microfiche Series (IMonographs) ICIVJH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Inatituta fr^ Hittorieal Mleroraproduetlon. / Institut Canadian da microraproduction. historiquaa ©1996 Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et bibllographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming are checked below. D D D D D D n Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur Covers damaged / Couverture endommagde Covers re^ored and/or laminated / Couverture restaurte et/ou pellicula Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps / Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Cokxjred plates and/or illustrattons / Planches '^ou lllustFattons en couleur Bound with other material / Reli6 avec d'autres documents Only editkm available / Seule ^(fitkm disponible Tight binding may cause shadows or distortkm along interior margin / La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsk>n le tong de la marge intdrieure. Blank leaves added during restoreAons may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from fibning / II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texle, mais, kxsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M (Hmdes. L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur examplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exem- plaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la m6th- ode normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. I [ Cokiured pages/ Pages de couleur I I Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ — ' Pages restaurtes et/ou pelltouldes r^ Pages discotoured, stained or foxed / '-^ Pages d^cotortes, tachetdes ou (Mqu^es I I Pages detached/ Pages d*tach6e8 r^ Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ ' — ' Quality in^gale de I'impresston D D D Includes supplementary material / Comprend du materiel suppiementaire Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refitmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'en^ta. une pelure, etc., ont M filmees k nouveau de fagon k obtenir la meilleure image possible. Opposing pages with varying colouration or discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variables ou des decol- orations sont film^es deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleur image possible. D AddHtonal comments / Commentaires suppKmentaires: Thh ittfli it f iHiMd at tiM raduction ratio etiackad balow/ C« docuntMit tst f iima au taux da riduction indiqu* ei-da»oin. lOX ^^^^ 14X 1«X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy fiimad h«r« has b««n r«pro4uc«d thanks to th« g«n«ro«ity of: National I.lbrary of Canada L'axamplairo f ilm4 f ut raproduit grico i la g4n«roiit* da: Blbllothiqua natlonalo du C anada Tha imagas appaaring horo ara tha bast quality poMibIa considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Original copiaa in printad papor covars ara fllmad baginning with tha front eovar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copies ara filmad baginning on flto first paga with a printad or illuatratad imprs«- sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad or Ulustratad imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol ^^^ (maaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (maaning "END"), whichavar appliaa. Maps, platas. charts, ate. may ba filmad at diffarant reduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba ontiraly included in ona axposuro ara filmad beginning in tha upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bonom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les imagas suivantas ent M reproduitas avac Is plus grand soin. compta tenu de la condition at da la nenetO de I'eJiemplaira filmA. et an eonformito avee lea eonditiona du eontrat da filmage. Lee eaemplairea originaux dont le eouverture en pepier est imprimifte sont filmAs en commencant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commencant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire paga qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboles suivants spparaftra sur la demiire image de cheque microfiche, selon le caa: le symbols -» signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbole ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartos. planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent otre filmte i des Mux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour atra raproduit an un saul clichi. il est film* i partir de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche ii droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'imeges n^esseire. Les diegremmes suivants Ulustrent le mSthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 MKROCOTY mSOUITION TiST CHART (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) /APPLIED IIVMCjt, Inc 1653 Eosl Main Slr««t r.S Rochester. New York U609 USA (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone (716) 288 - S989 - Fax i H i1 1^ i *\ li ^' ^L8 1^' /f- C. Ct4nijAlL tAAO? f^O^ i9e$ THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM AN ENQUIRY WHETHER CHRISTIAF ETHICS AND IMPERIALISM ARE ANTAGONISTIC BY ALBERT B. CABMAN BOSTON HEBBEBT B. TURNEB 1 »0« i CO CS7 Copyright, 1906, by Hbbbebt B. Tdbnxb & Co. AU rigkti reaerved nrmiD at statiobm' hau. PvBusHBD May, 1905 The PowtU Pntt, Oamkridge CONTENTS /. //. ///. IF. V, VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. The Paradox . Is There an Explanation? Spencer on Egoism and Altruism The True Distinction The Fighting Unit . The Folly of Altruism Egoism and Christian Ethics The Individual and the Fighting Unit ... The Nation the Fighting Unit Imperialism . The Citizen and Imperialism The Social Reformer and Im- perialism . Imperialism and Ultimate Peac The Patriotic Instinct Individual Liberty . 9 H 24 38 49 62 72 77 89 99 116 127 141 153 164 I THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM I. THE PARADOX Does there not appear to b*. «i, ^^ «o.e Jar; ^^r, - «•■: ~do„aI boundarie?arr P~P''-'8"0'« of race l7. ^T ""'^ "° difference principle i. ...he bird o "J^ " 'a! Recess „,^ „ „^^^ -^ a ^w. and the hated people of Sam.,j presented ,0 the elect „f ? j™ "*** ofd.eir..brothe^;'"/,^^Jf»«'yP" 9 THE ETHICS OP IMPEHIALISM equal rights to all people. It refuses to see inferiority of rights in color, race or feeble- ness. Its message is— "One Father and one family." The Imperialistic spirit, on the other hand, makes much of narional 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 modem "Samaria" to present to the "ebct" of its own household as types ofthe public enemy. It teaches the essential inequality of men, the duty of recognising that inequality, the duty of doing unto some 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— especially in the latter. Its message is— "One Father, and He is on our side! " The teaching of ChJsrian Ethics is both philanthropic and missionary. It regards the 'requirement to deal justly with all peoples as a cold and inadequate rendering 10 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM of the duty laid upon the Christian. He must deal more than justly— he must deal generously with all peoples who on earth do dwell; and the greater the need of the people- spiritually, mentally or physically— the greater the demand upon his zeal and charity. That this often requires a sacrifice on the part of the Christian, is a common-place. The mis- sionaiy does not, presumably, go out in search of personal advantage. He goes out to die— if need be— that men of other nations, races and languages may come into their nghts. And in doing this, he has the rap- turous approval of pracJcally the entire sentiment of the Christian worid. The teaching of Imperialism is neither philanthropic nor missionary. It regards the requirement to deal justly with all peoples as temporarily suspended when the « rights " of any other people rise as barriers to what we call "the defensive growth" of the Im- penal whole. The notion of " dealing gener- ously" with an enemy, whose success is our humiliation, would never enter the Imperial mind. The Imperialist makes his sacrifices II THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM in order to crush the foe. He goes out to die—if need be— that men of other nations, races and languages may be deprived of what, were his case their*s, he would regard as his rights. And in doing this, he has the thunder- ous approval of pracrically the enrire sentiment of the Imperialist— and Christian— worid. The attitudes assumed by the representative of Chrisrian ethics and of the Imperialistic spirit respectively toward an "" ^erior race" illuminate this point. The .nissionaiy calls them "brothers;" but, if they presume to demand the rights of brotherhood, the soldier shoots them for "rebels." The missionary preaches "equality;" but the soldier seizes superiority. The missionary, believing that the native religion is an evil, itacks it; but the soldier avoids trouble and seeks popularity by respecting it. In a word, the missionaiy— to the best of his lights— seeks the good of the "inferior race;" while the soldier seeks first the supremacy of the flag. Yet the same people send out both the missionaiy and the soldier; and as large a majority of them support the one as support the other. 12 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM I have used the missionary here as the representative of the attitude of mir i of the mass of the people at home who accept what we call Christian ethics. But, of course, I know quite well that the livery of Christ is worn on occasion by the Imperialist. Like the people, who, as I have mentioned above, are as unanimous for Imperialism as they are 1 Dr Christian ethics, the Church, being com- posed of (he people, exhibits the same remark- able phenomenon. But that does not alter the fart that the teachings of Chrisrian ethics— as we hear and accept them in the calm of peace— are diametrically opposed ac nearly every point touching foreign peoples to the pracdcal code of Imperialism. The messenger of the Prince of Peace may, at rimes, wear an army chaplain's uniform; but his normal message is still Peace and Brotherly Love. 13 II. IS THERE AN EXPLANATION? As intimated in the last chapter, the p.-,ra- dox which challenges our attention is the indisputable fact that practically all Christian peoples are Imperialistic. There are, of course, some logical minds which find them- selves forced by sincere and thoughtful deductions from current Christian doctrine to offer a heroic opposition to Imperialism, just as there are ot'ier minds which are driven into the same attitude by the manner in which some of the practical results of Imperialism bar the progress of social reform; but it is nevertheless true that the great mass of the people accept at once Christian ethics and Imperialistic patriotism. When there is no specific Imperialistic proposal to the fore, what is commonly regarded as the higher moral ground of the Christian and Radical atritudes secures so 14 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM much more attention for the teaching of their representatives that we might be inclined to think — especially in Anglo-Saxon countries — that a very large proportion of the people were anti-Imperialistic. But the raising of the flag over a cf ncrete case of Imperialism quickly dispels this delusion. A Boer war, a Cuban war, a Franco-German war, a Japanese occupation of Corea, shows the whole people to be m favor of a movement which promises to strengthen the national prestige. And that, in a word, is the purpose of Imperialism. The Imperialist wanti? to make his own nation more powerful. Now this is only done, in this world of relative national strengths, by making some other nation weaker. We cease to be our brother's keeper; and we seek to leave him on the field crippled, if not dying. The United States grew strong at the expense of Spain; Britain grew strong at the grave-side of the Boer ReiDublics; Germany grew strong by the crippling of France. Yet every one of these nations — those who sdFered as well as those who struck — accept with barely 15 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM a dissenting voice, and, in practically all cases except those in the Imperialistic field, act upon, the principles of Christian ethics. They love their "brother," and > at the bidding of Imperialism, t..ey hate him; they "keep" him, and they kill him; they face death to "save his soul," and they face death to shoot his life out at the very moment when the brute passions of a great mutual killing are sweeping his soul like a cyclone. Is there any answer to this riddle ? Are the Christian Imperialists in a position of hopeless inconsistency ? Do we sys^emati- caily preach one thing and do quite another ? Or, to put it more fairly, do we preach and pracnce Christian ethics in nine cases out of ten, only to become savages "when the guns begin to shoot ?" Is imperialism an eruption of the pagan and the barbarian in us, is some solemnly assert? Is patriotism an evidence of narrow-mindedness, an ignoble primal passion, eternally at war with the higher and purer truth which teaches us to always seek first the good of others ? To answer these questions in the affirmative l6 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM would be to w gravely arraign the .anity and good faith of practically all European peoplei that we .hould mott carefully examine the ground, which underlie the two .yttems of conviction which we have seen are apparently so hopele««ly at variance, before deciding that they are really in that position. What we might call the instincts of htimanity-no matter how little we may value its opinions- are not to be dismissed lightly. Our instinas are tV^ accumulated teaching of generations of expencncet and the very fact that the races • uch possess them have survived, is prima ^cte evidence that their tendency is toward 'rvival. Now we have here two veiy strong i...tincts-the instinct of patriotism which leads a man to fight for his countiy, and the instmct of brotherhood which leads him to help a brother man. They both shine out brilliantly on the battle-field-kill an enemy and succor a comrade. Here they work toother, the one complementing the other: and we feel no contradiction between them until we are told to " love our enemy" in the name of human brotherhood. To succor 17 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM a comrade is to help in the work of killing our enemy; but to "love our enemy'* — ^what a trifling with words it would be to pretend to love him while dogging him from boulder to boulder in a fierce hope of putting a bullet in his brain! Yet to-morrow we may be "loving" him. The war may be over! The question of national supremacy may be settled forever; and we may be helping him re-stock the farms we destroyed, we may be shipping out boat- loads of teachers to equip his schools, we may — if we think he needs it — be sending him missionaries to inculcate the true religion of Eternal Peace and Universal Brotherhood. Yet it may be possible that to-morrow the war will be over, and we shall be still hating him. We may not he helping him re-stock his farms, but may be exacting a war indemnity from his crushed population. The only "missionaries" we shall send to him will be military spies; and, as for teaching, we shall bid him con the stem lessons our cannon have just taught. Now what will make the difl?erence? i8 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM Just the single, simple fact that in the one case we shall believe that we have finally conquered; and in the other case we shall fear that the struggle way be renewed again. In a word, it is only when our "enemy" ceases to be our enemy that we love him. That is we "love" him when we can "carry comfort to him with no national disadvantage to ourselves. We will do nothing for him while he IS an enemy which will strengthen his power of effective enmity. The thing which stands out most boldly from all this, is the sharp and decisive manner in which brotherly love stops at precisely the point where national danger begins. It is patriotism, and patriotism only, that narrows the bounds of brotherly love. We permit no other influence or passion to authoritatively set a limit to what we call "a Christian duty " Other passions may lead to a neglect of duty • but we regard their influence in this respect as evil and are ashamed of their temporary dommanct. On the other hand, we are proud of our patriotism; and we invite the official representatives of Christian ethics to 19 I THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM pray for its success in accomplishing the act of ultimate anti-brotherhood. This suggests that there is an essential difference in our minds between our relations with the public enemy and our relations with all other men. We are as pioud of enmity toward him as we are of charity toward others. An entire change comes over our mental attitude when we cross the national boundary into the sphere of influence of another centre of Imperialism. Now this is not accidental nor individual; it is regular and universal. It is a law— not an exception to a law. And it ought to furnish us with some clue to the solution— if solution there be—of the riddle with which we opened this volume. The fact which most outstands from the operations of this law is that Altruism— that is, the caring first for the interests of others- is under some circumstances suspended, and suspended with the approval of our moral judgment. Altruism, under certain con- ditions, becomes treason. Now we have been accustomed to think of Altruism as the basic principle of our Christian ethics; and 20 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM to imagine that, without it, all that is best in our moral code would disappear. Still here we find it in direct collision with the equally valued moral principle of Patriotism; and one of them must certainly make way for the other. War has never been defined as con- crete Altruism. Yet the universal judgment of mankind shows in practice that when the ri^oice comes between the two, it decides for . iperialistic patriotism and against Altru- ism, and so decides with that inner sense of moral uplift which approves its action as right. Now if we finally tie what we have called Christian ethics up with Altruism, it is plain that we have doomed Christian ethics to a real collapse at this point. It is not merely that the teaching of Christian ethics will be Ignored. It is far more serious than that. It is, in a word, that we must prepare for the declaration, on the authority of the universal human conscience, that at this point Chnsti^n ethics becomes immoral! Now a system of ethics hung upon principles which are not universally applicable, is surely in a pitiable condition. It cannot claim to be 21 :.f THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM more than a makeshift-a tissue of experi- mental patch-work— an adventitious creation which may go to pieces at any moment. ii.thical principles are, in this respect, like floatmg boats— one hole is sufficient to sink them. If they are not universal and eternal, they are not principles. The long experience of the Christian worid has led it to value what it calls Christian ethics; and it would probably be quite willing to consider what at first sight might be un- pleasant possibilities if it imagined that they contained an explanation which would save sound and whole this accustomed ethical system. In order to do this, the explanation mustharmonize brotherly love with patriotism. Christian ethics with Imperialism. Obviously, this must be done by hanging the whole upon some other principle than that which has plainly broken down— viz.; Altruism; and by abandoning as erroneous the alleged ethical teaching which this false philosophy of Altruism has set up against the instincts of patnotism. The only other principle that can be tried is, of course, Egoism; by no 22 iti THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM means a novel experiment, or, to many minds, an agreeable one. But the case is desperate; and there is novelty at least in the widespread desire of earnest patriots and earnest believers in Christian ethics to save their moral sanity by finding an ethical principle which will justify at once the sacrifices of the worker in the slum and the sacrifices of the soldier on tlu battle-field. We shall begin, too, with the advantage of knowing that Egoism can have no quarrel with Imperialism. At that end, the bridge is already secure;. 23 III. SPENCER ON EGOISM AND ALTRUISM We cannot do better than begin with the safe practice of defining our teims. This is all the more necessary in the case of Egoism and Altruism because of the fact that hardly any two persons appear to mean precisely the same thing by them. One will speak of them as if Egoism were synonymous with selfishness and Altruism with unselfishness. Another will see clearly enough that en- lightened Egoism may-nay, must-be unsel- hsh; that,m a word,noman can inanadvanced state of society serve his own interests best by wholly disregarding the interests of others; but he will follow this extension of the Egoistic conception so far as to hold that every act must m reality be Egoistic, because no act can be performed by a free being, unless, eveiy- thing being considered, he prefers so to act And between these two extreme points— that 24 I l! THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM of the limited Egoism of selfishness, and that of the unlimited Egoism in which preference to act is made the test instead of the serving of one's own interests by the action—there are many shades. The terms as I intend to use them in this discussion, may be defined as follows:— Egoism is preferring one's own interests to the interests of others. This may be shown by killing a man in order to eat him, or by co-operating with him in order to get much more to eat, or by co-operating with society in order to get immensely greater returns in security to life and in happiness. Altruism is preferring the interests of others to one's own. Logically, it meets commercial rivalry with voluntary bankruptcy, and personal rivalry with suicide. It is not to be confounded either with the mere doing of things for others which is usually an exhibirion of enlightened Egoism, or the impossible theory that a man can do what he would rather not do in order that others may benefit. A man always does what, taking into consideration all the forces which play 25 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM upon his mind, he would rather do. But when he prefers to sacrifice his own interests— that is, his chances for life and happiness— to those of others, he is acting Altruistically. It will be noticed that these definitions do not coincide with the conceptions of Egoism and Altruism with which Mr. Herbert Spencer works. He defines Altruism as "being all action which, in the normal course of things, benefits others instead of benefiting self." (Data of Ethics); and then proceeds to make clear how comprehensive he intends this definition to be by stating that under Altruism he takes "in the acts by which offspring are preserved and the species maintained." "Moreover, among these acts must be included," he goes on, "not such only as are accompanied by consciousness but also such as conduce to the welfare of oflFspring without mental representation of the welfare —acts of automatic altruism as we might call them." Farther along, he says,—" Whatever action, unconscious or conscious, involves expenditure of individual life to the end of increasing life in other mdividuals, is un- 26 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM questionably altruistic in a sense, if not in the usual sense." This Mr. Spencer follows, as is his custom, with illuminating examples. Low forms of animal life which propagate by gemmation or fission, in which "parents bequeath parts of their bodies, more or less organized, to form offspring at the cost of their own individualities," are given as examples of physical Altruism. Where " loss of bodily substance" accompanies birth or rearing of offspring, Mr. Spencer always sees Altruism. "When a mother yields milk by absorbing which the young one grows, it cannot be questioned that there is also a material sacrifice." He even goes so far as to say that "though material sacrifice is not manifest when the young are benefited by activities on their behalf; yet, as no effort can be made without an equivalent loss of tissue, and as bodily loss is proportionate to the expenditure which takes place without reim- bursement in food consumed, it follows that efforts made in fostering offspring do really resent a part of the parental substance; which is now given indirectly instead of directly." vj THE ETHICS OP IMPERULISM Thus it is clear that Mr. Spencer's con- ception of Altruism is the performance of any act which carries material benefit to another. A father walking through an orchard with his boy, reaches up and plucks two apples, thus makmg "an efFon" which imphes "an equivalent loss of tissue." With his fore- finger and thumb, he passes one of the apples to his boy, keeping the other for himself between his other fingers and his palm. Mr Spencer would say that his fore-finger and thumb were Altruistically employed, and that his other fingers and palm were Egoisrically employed. He appears to take no account of any other element in the act but that of material benefit. Yet the father may have received ten rimes the pleasure from giving the apple to the . oy as from keeping the other for himself. As he watches the lad bite greedily into the juicy fruit, he may, indeed, decide to slip the other apple into his pocket instead of earing it himself, with the intention of subsequently giving himself the pleasure of seeing the lad enjoy another apple. It is a surprise to find Mr. Spencer thus 28 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM ignoring the Spencerian test of happiness. He has previously told us, in discussing the attitudes of the pessimist and the optimist respecting life, that "the justification for life turns on this issue — ^whether the average consciousness rises above indifference point into pleasurable feeling, or falls below it into painf u! feeling." That is, the measure of life is the amount of happiness it produces. In fact, the giving of material benefits by one to another implies that these benefits will either produce happiness directly for the receiver, or else will sustain life which is only valuable because it results in an average surplus of happiness. An ''Altruism " which consisted in pairing with a material substance to another, which produced more pain than pleasure, would- not be Altruism at all. If we could conceive of the case of a man who should kill himself in a neighbour's house with a view to making the house distasteful to its owner ever after, we should have "an expenditure of individual life " for its effect upon another; but we should not call it an example of Altruism but of ingenious enmity. The very 29 :i(i ! THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM idea of Altniitm impliet the conferrinR of a benefit on the "other;" and a benefit implie. -according to Mr. Spencer-happiness. It i» neither the sacrifice of material substance, nor the giving of this material substance to another, which is the test; but the parting with happiness, or the material of happiness, for the benefit of another. Now the father who plucks an apple for his boy IS performing an act which makes him (the father) happy. He is not parting with, or reducing, his own happiness. This father IS, of course, diflferent in character from the father who would prefer to eat all the apples himself; just as a man who enjoys good music IS different m mental constitution from a man who does not. But for a man who does not enjoy music to regard his musical neighbour as Altruistic because he goes with his wife to a concert, would be no more absurd than for a father without love for his children to descnbe the giving of the apple in the above incident as Altruistic. Both men are seeking happiness by satisfying certain appetites with- in themselves; and the fact that one results in 30 THE ETHICS OF IMPERUUSM giving food to a child and the other in giving pleasure to a woman, is largely accidental and irrelevant. Students of Spencer will remember to what a pass this conception of Altruism brings the great thinker. He cannot make Altruism a universal moral principle, for it would lead to suicide; but neither can he make his emasculated Egoism, stripped of such neces- sary duties as production and care of offspring, a universal principle either, for it would lead to the obliteration of the race in one generation. So he proposes a present compromise and a future conciliation. We are to have neither too much Egoism nor too much Altruism until that happy state comes about in which opportunities for Altruism will grow so rare that they will be Egoistically sought. But even then Mr. Spencer does not quite abandon the "virtue " of Altruism. Opportunities for Altruism will, under such conditions, as we have said, be sought for the pleasure they will yield; but, as they will be scarce, each will take care "that others shall have their oppor- tunities for Altruistic satisfaction." That is, 31 ill THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM we shall sacrifice ourselves by restraining a desire to sacrifice ourselves in order that others may have this opportunity of sacri- ficing themselves. But what of the others ? They must then sacrifice themselves by restraining their desire to sacrifice themselves in the opportunity in which we have already sacrificed ourselves by restraining our desire to sacrifice ourselves in order that the others might sacrifice themselves, that the opportu- nity may come back to us again and that we may enjoy the pleasure of sacrificing oursc'ves; and so on ad infinitum. Apparently Altruistic actions would, in a perfect society of the Spencer model, be handed back and forth and never get done at all. Now would not Mr. Spencer have emerged in a more logical position if he had adhered to his usual doctrine that life must be stated m terms of happiness.? Under this rule. Egoism would not be limited to the keeping of material benefits for one's self, but would be defined as the preferring of one's interests to those of others; and "interests" would, m this case, be at least as broad as the pre- 32 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM servation of life and the aui^rnentatiou of happiness. When a man «ei former] ;n act then which brought him more hap^^iije }s than it cost him in the happiness-purchasing power of the " bodily substance " it exhausted, no one would think of calling it Altruistic. It would be the purest Egoism; though it might be that higher form of Egoism which understands that the greatest pleasures come through unselfishness. The father plucking an apple for his boy would be Egoistically enjoying himself; so would the mother nursing her babe; so would the bird building a nest or the hen laying an egg. How it has come about that living creatures have appetites which result in the propagation and preservation of the species, is no mystery to the evolutionist. Obviously only such species as performed these acts could survive; and those which happened to enjoy their performance would naturally do so with more frequency and assiduity than others who did not enjoy it, with the result that, in competition with these other species, they tended to survive. This is precisely the same process 33 i THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM that produced all of our healthful appetites. The animals which enjoyed eating certain kinds of healthful foods were more eager in looking them up and devouring them than were other animals whose enjoyment in eating them was mild or who enjoyed less health-g-ving sorts of food, with the result that the animals with the stronger and better- directed appetites tended to survive, while those with the weak or misdirected appetites have disappeared. Now happiness is to a very large degree secured by the satisfaction of appetites, whether it be an appetite for food or for the drama or for family affection or for the approval of the community or for the rearing of children or for "doing good" to others. There is, of course, a distinction between the man whose appetites are entirely personal, and the man whose appetites are largely communal. We call the first selfish and the second unselfish; and there is usually a mild general pressure which discourages the sur- vival of the first and encourages the survival of the second. But is not this a distinction 34 m THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM very like that between a musical man and non-musical man? The one— the musical man— has a capacity for happiness which the other lacks. It is better for the community that the former and not the latter should survive. Still is there any tremendous ethical distinction between the act of the non-musical man who stays away from a concert, and that of the musical man who attends every good concert he can, and so helps to increase the chances to hear good music in the community .? Both men are guided by their appetites; both men are seeking happiness. Would a system of natural ethics find its grc ,\\ey of division between the actions of two men? Would we call the non-musical man, who prefers, perhaps, to gather flowers in the forest; an Egoist; and the musical man, who sits in a trance through a Wagnerian opera, an Altruist; simply because it is better for the community to cultivate music than to decimate the flowers ? It must be remembered that the distinction between Egoism and Altruism is the great hemispherical division of ethics. The line 35 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM between them should be drawn at the point of the deepest natural division. Now as we look around the whole sphere for the line of widest division, do we find nothing wider than that which separates the man .hose appetites are selfish from him whose appetites are unselfish ? The division here, broad as it seems in effect, is seldom discernible at all in the motives of the actors. Heredity and early environment h^ve made one man selfish, and the same forces have made another man unselfish; and each seeks happiness in his own way. The fact is that the selfish man very often makes a greater struggle against his natural inclination than the unselfish man. If the Altruism of acts is to be measured by the sacrifices they necessitate in order that others may benefit, then the selfish man is often far more Altruistic than his neighbor whose nature perpetually urges him to deeds of neighborliness and philanthropy. In fact, the more Altruistic — using the word as Mr. Spencer would — a man is by nuure, the less Altruistic is he apt to be in motive. Surely what we have here is not a gieat, 36 THE ETHICS OF IMPERULISM deep-cutting ethical distinction, but the vary- ing results of the processes of evolution. And these same evolutionary processes will gradually eliminate the selfish and develop the unselfish; for the man with the highest capacity for communal life, is the man who will tend to survive. We must look elsewhere for our wide valley of ethical distinction. Z7 :r!: IV. THE TRUE DISTINCTION. Let us then push on, with this measure of life by the happiness it will produce in our hands; and see where it will bring us. So long as a man is seeking self-preservation and happiness, he is Egoistic. But let us suppose that he prefers above his own preservation and happiness, the preservation and happiness of others— what then ? Have we not here leaped a great gulf ? And it is a gulf, the two sides of which have not been created by the different workings of the processes of evolution as is the case with the selfish and the unselfish man; for evolution would never countenance the survival of a class of beings who really sought first the survival of others. The distinction between the enlightened Egoism of unselfishness and this genuine Altruii.m, is very clear. Unselfishness, when Egoistic, really results in increasing the chances of sur- vival and the prospects for happiness of the 38 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM unselfish man; but we are talking here of acts which genuinely decrease his chances of survival and diminish his hopes for happiness. Such conduct, if persevered in, would lead to the obliteration of his species. He could not be the product of evolution. He could be no more than a temporary "freak" in the progress of the race; for, unless his decendants " reformed " and became Egoistic, they would eventually die out. But, granting for the moment the possi- bility of such Altruistic conduct, have we not here a wide dividing line ? It is radical — deep — not to be bridged. On one bank, a man acts so as to preserve his own life and augment his own happiness; on the other bank, he acts so as to destroy his own life or decrease his own happiness. On the Egoistic bank, there is race development; on the Altruistic bank, race suicide. If it be a good thing to increase the chances of life and happiness for humanity, then Egoism is good and Altruism is evil. Here then is the natural place for our great hemispherical division. The only effective i I. THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM objection to it is conveyed in the question put by some whether cuch Altruism be possible. Can a man prefer the interests of others in the sense of actually decreasing his chances for survival and happiness in order that theirs may be increased ? Some of the instances of unwise Altruism which Mr. Spencer describes would appear to be cases of this sort. The father who works himself into a physical collapse for the benefit of his family; the laborer who toils in the sun until he gets a sunstroke and so leaves his family to the care of the community; the clerk who spoils his eyes or gets "writer's cramp" and so cannot work; the public man who shatters his health and so does not accomplish what he might; such are the instances he presents. But the danger of tying a principle up to an example is that the reader may get a mental picture of the example — possibly from some similar case which he knows— that is not an appli- cation of the principle at all. Still these instances may be followed so far as they actually refer to cases in which a man deliber- ately sacrifices his health and happiness in 40 'niE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM the belief that he is providing for the life and happiness of others. But if it should be that he is only striving to keep present and pressing want from his loved ones, careless of what the future may hold for any of them, then his collapse is not due to Altruism but to the strenuous satisfaction of his greatly alarmed instinct or appetite of fatherly care. A better answer to the question is probably some such simple statement as this — If a man can choose to act in any given case so as to secure for himself the greatest amount of life and happiness, he can surely choose to act otherwise. And as he can so choose in such a way as to decrease his life and happiness by taking too little account of the profits and pleasures to be got by commuaal co-operation, he can also so choose as to bring about this decrease from the possible maximum by overestimating the advantages to be got from communal co-operation. The fact of the matter is that what we call unselfishness has always been a progressively evolving virtue. The unselfishness of one age becomes the selfishness of the next. Take as an example 41 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM the treatment of the family by the father. The barbaric man fought for his family but would not work for it; and the utmost limit of his unselfishness was to see that it did not suffer from physical attack. Next we find him providing it with what might be called the raw materials of food and clothing; and so progressively has the father extended the limits of his exertion for the benefit of the family until the modern American father is depicted as sla- I'ng all year in his office in order that Ka t i.nily mzy idle between its city, sea-side and mountain homes. The father who to-day would merely arrange for police protection for his household, would suon be "wanted" by the police for non- support. And so it is with all social relations. The credit basis of much of our modern business would have been impossible not so very long ago; and the man who would have then given credit to a customer would have been literally sacrificing his own interests— i.e. his life and happiness— to the interests of the customer. That would have been— had he knowingly 42 THE ETHICS OF IMPPRIALJSM done it—Altruism; to-day the same act is enlightened Egoism. So we may say that the point at which the sacrifice of one's life and hap- piness in order that others may gain life and happiness, brings back the maximum return of life and happiness to us, is always shifting. Wider and wider grows the domain of profit- able unselfishness. It may be that on some golden to-morrow it will be impossible to serve others without securing a greater return for one's self; but in that millenium there can be no Altruism, for Egoism will have con- quered the entire realm of possible human action. This sweet dream, however, can never come true so long as opportunities are scarcer t!: len; for whenever there be two men competing for one opportunity, it will I'e Within the power of one of them to efface himself— perhaps by suicide— and thus per- form an act of Altruism which can bring no Egoistic return. Before leaving for the present this question of the possibility of Altruism, it ought, perhaps, to be said in the interest of clearness that this volume treats of a course of conduct which 43 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM contains, under present circumstances, a display of Altruistic action— viz. r—the oppo- sition given to Imperialism by certain persons on the ground that we have no right as national communities to uecrease the chances for life and happiness of others in order that our chances may be increased. It is hard to escape the feeling that Mr. Spencer had a sub-consciousness all through his discussion of this question that his dis- tinction between Egoism and Altruism was unscientific, and that there was no real and innate difference between the two as he defined them. All through, he argues that a man's Egoistic satisfactions are increased by his knowledge of the satisfactions of others. For example, he says that men live together instead of separately because they " everally reap more good than evil from tiie union." In discussing tribal co-oper- ation, he refers to "the ways in which the Egoistic satisfactions of each are dimin- ished by deficiency of that Altruism which checks overt injury to others." Again, he says, "each profits Egoistically from the 44 i THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM growth of an Altruism which leads each to aid in preventing or diminishing others* violence." All through this chapter on "Al- truism versus Egoism," he argues that the practice of Altruism leads to Egoistic satis- factions; a contention which is not to be distinguished from saying that so-called Altruism is nothing but enlightened Egoism. This becomes more marked in his final chapter on "Conciliation." He anticipates so great a development of sympathy that among the keenest of our pleasures will be those which come from sympathy with the pleasures of others. A mother, indeed, has already reached this stage. In that state, we shall seek to give others pleasure whenever the opportunity offers— that is, "eventually sympathetic pleasures will be spontaneously pursued to the fullest extent advantageous to each and all." Then Mr. Spencer goes on- "In natures thus constituted, though the Altruistic gratifications must remain in a transfigured sense Egoistic, yet they will not be Egoistically pursued— will not be pursued from Egoistic motives. Though pleasure 45 I THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM will be gained by giving pleasure, yet the thought of the sympathetic pleasure to be gained will not occupy consciousness, but only the thought of the pleasure given." He illustrates his meaning here by an analogy: — "A miser accumulates money, not deliber- ately saying to himself, *I shall by doing this get the delight which possession gives.' He thinks only of the money and the means of getting it, and he experiences incidentally the pleasure that comes from possession." That is, the Egoism of the miser consists, not in pursuing pleasure, but in pursuing money. But why does he pursue money? Is it not because he takes pleasure out of the possession of money ? Is not money in his case merely an instrument of pleasure ? In what does he differ in this respect from the man who pursues money to spend it on fast horses ? In each case, the money buys pleasure for its possessor, though in the case of the miser it buys it directly while in the case of the man with the fast horses it buys it indirectly through the purchase of the horses. The latter man might as fairly be 46 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM said not to be pursuing pleasure but to be pursuing horses only. Is it possible to thus distinguish between the pursuit of pleasure and the pursuit of things which bring pleasure? If a man were to set out to pursue pleasure pure and simple, what would he pursue ? How do we get pleasure ? By the satisfaction of certain appetites or capacities for pleasure within us. The satisfaction of these appetites or capaci- ties is only accomplished by securing the things which satisfy them. There is no other way. The glutton, to find pleasure, must have food; and yet would it not be trifling with words to say that he is pursuing food and not pleasure when he seeks out a famous restau- rant? The musical man must have music in order to feed his musical appetite; but does he nqt seek pleasure when he goes to a concert ? And so,'surely,the man who takes his pleasure in seeing the pleasure of others. He thinks, of course, of the pleasure of the others pre- cisely as the glutton gloats over the viands he is to get or the musical man runs over the concert programme; but the beckoning motive 47 i THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM in each case is the pleasure it is to give the^ man himself when he sees the others enjoying themselves, or eats his appetising dishes, or hears his musical numbers. So may we not imagine that, while Mr. Spencer used the terms of Egoism and Altruism in the artificial sense in which he did — a sense very close to that of common speech, though followed into details with the relentless courage of a logical thinker — he had a consciousness that there was no real dividing line between them, though he does not seem to have found the place where the natural boundary runs. Yet even that is uncertain,' for the acts which he describes as going too far in the direction of Altruism and hence being unwise, are really acts of genuine Altruism, which, as we shall see, are always immoral. 48 V. THE FIGHTING UNIT. Egoism begins, of course, with the self-love of the individual. He wants to live, and he wants to be happy. I have no intention of going into a discussion of the Egoistic philoso- phy. There are whole libraries full of such discussions. What I am concerned to do is simply to state, as briefly as I can without a sacnfice of clearness, the possibility that the Egoistic principle may be found to support all proper phases and developments of Chris- tian ethics, while it accounts for the growth of the individual's love of life into the nation's love of power. The individual's first business is to live A veiy superficial study of the animal world shows that there is nothing which the indi- vidual will not do to live. Stealthy and cowardly murder is a commonplace of the jungle. The pressure of circumstances will bnng cannibalism. Mothers will kill and eat 49 iHil THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM their children. Any horror we can imagine will be reproduced in the nearest thicket or pond. And the same principle governs the highest type of modem society. The indi- vidual still knows no limit to the things which he will do in order to survive, except the limits the observance of which his t3rpe has learned by long experience makes for survival far more effectively than the refusal to observe them. For example, the modem man has ceased from certain forms of physical murder and plunder for personal aggrandisement, becai se his life and property are more secure in a community where these methods of strengthening one's position are not permitted. There is a stage of animal development at which the individual is the Fighting Unit. By Fighting Unit, I mean the Unit which is expected to fight physically to live, whether it be the individual, family, tribe or nation. The Unit may fight on the defensive to preserve life from direct assault; or on the aggressive to preserve life by sustaining and fortifyirg it with wealth, whether food, or materials which will buy food and other 50 1 ! THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM products of labor, or opportunities to get such materials. The marked distinction made in modem communities between defensive and offensive fighting, is never so clear in the case of the Fighting Unit. The Fighting Unit employs physical force — as well as mental and all other forces — ^to secure life and happi- ness, and it matters little whether it be to fight defensively against a hungry enemy or to fight aggressively for food. A Fighting Unit only ceases to be such when it becomes confidingly imbedded in a co-operating com- munity which guarantees it a greater security of life and a surer hold upon happiness if it will surrender to the community the right to employ physical force for bettering its condition. Then the community becomes the Fighting Unit. Thus early there appears an extension of the Fighting Unit. Families which stand to- gether tend to survive in competition with the individuals composing families which do not. Accidental co-operation in defence against a much stronger common enemy may have been the first step in united family f i * f f 1 r:i tB THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM fighting; but eventually the individual finds that, as a rule, he will get more to eat if he restrains his desire to make a meal of his brother, choosing rather to hunt in company with him. Now this k not Altruism. This is not love of his brother. This is the most absolute Egoism. His sole purpose is to live and be happy; and he has merely learned the elementary lesson that family co-operation will increase his chances to life and happiness. It is very difficult for the human mind, after untold centuries of discipline in brotherly love, to look back through the mists and see the naked Egoism of the origin of this love. We cannot forbear the fond imagining that the first animal to recognize kinship must have been moved by some trace of affection brought to life in its bosom by a familiar flirt of the tail or pose of the fin. But to seriously incorporate such an idea in our theory of life is to subscribe to the doctrine that some- thing can come out of nothing — ^that an effect may be causeless. So long as your individual animal knew nothing of the bene- fits of co-operation, he regarded every brother 52 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM in the light of a "meal" or a "mealer." To suppose that he suddenly loved his brother, and that he learned to his great surprise afterward that this, in place of depriving him of a meal, made meals easier to get, is to put the initial date of the age of miracles well back. It is practically certain, indeed, that co-operation would be at first accidental and exceptional; but that the co-operating families or groups survived in so decisive a manner that it became a habit and then an instinct. This enlarged the Fighting Unit. In the animal world we find it enlarged, in different animals, to differing extents. But we may as well come at once to the consideration of the human animal which is the only animal —so far as I know— which endeavors to com- bine an Altruistic system of ethics with Imperialism. The history of the human race— indistinct as it is in its early stages- shows this same enlargement of the Fighting Unit which we have been considering in the animal worid. Apparently, it was never smaller than the family, or, possibly, the tribe, we having inherited this much from « the long 53 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM results of time." But there was a distinct difference in the relations between A. and B., members of the same tribe, and those between A. and X., members of different tribes. A. and B., meeting in the forest, co-operated; A. and X. probably fought. In order to get the matter clearly in our minds, let us start with the family as the Fighting Unit. We have here the play of the two forces— brotherly love and hostility to enemies. Brotherly love, as we have seen, has an Egoistic origin; but in operation within the limits of the family, at the stage when the family is the Fighting Unit, it wears the guise of Altruism. One brother will fight for another, even at times when there does not seem to be any hope of an .mmediate selfish return for him. He will risk his very life— which it is the first purpose of Egoism to save— in defence of his brother's life. And again we are met with the claim that, though brotherly love may have been bom of Egoism, this shows it to have developed into Altruism. Now if this be Altruism— if those who 54 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM regard Altruism as a great ethical principle example of ,ts operation-it will not be necessan^ for us to push this argument any farther. For what we have in this brotherly devotion is nothing in the world but Egoistic brotherly cooperation hardened into a habit, or, better still, woven into the man's fibre as an instinct. How this came about is venr dear. In the hard shock of fierce family compet-tion-the family being the Fighting Unit-there was no time left for a careful calculation of the advantages to be reaped by eveiy mdividual from standing by the family on each occasion when the rush of conflict came. If the special arguments for and against family cooperation were usually considered in each case before the family wou^d fight together, it is perfectly plain that If a family entered the lists which went on the prmciple that it would always fight together, without waiting to consider the probable results to mdividuals, that family would have a tremendous advantage in its constant readi- ness and the promptness with which it could 55 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM strike. Such families, making co-operation a constant law, would tend very strongly to survive. Families which doubted the wisdom of this blind mutual devotion, would be wiped out. Moreover, every aid which arose in the family breast to strengthen the certainty and quicken the eagerness of this brotherly mutual support, would assist survival, and would thereby itself survive. Risking death to save a brother's life, might be balked at to begin with; but the families where in it was done, would — other things being equal — be in the long run the stronger, and would survive the extinction of the others which usually declined the risk. And this illustrates again the genesis and development of brotherly love. It is the product of enlightened self- interest, which has come through nature's cruel but instructive school of evolutionary competition. The principle here is Egoism — not Altruism at all. Happily human development has gone so far that this statement can br proved to a demonstration; and proved by showing how brotherly love suffers cc xpse the moment it 56 THE ETHICS OP IMPERUUSM intcrci rs to your own. tn« family love ,s a beautiful example of Altruism will develop as we consider the Ob7 f u' '■""■"^ " » Fighting Unt Obvously that histoo- would „« be\ Io,^g to cooperate w.th the same effect upon thrir of the family had upon that of the individual. The tnbe would soon become the Fighting Um , and a new loyalty would grow upi the loyalty to the tribe. Unques.Lably for along time ,t vould be much weaker Ihan that cJder loyalty to the family. At the fir^ hmt that any family was being sacrificed™ thegenera mterests of the tribe, a momentary would fight for ,ts own. The same thing S7 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM undoubtedly happened again and again when individuals were learning to fight as families. At the beginning, the advantage of co-oper- ation to the individual had to be obvious, and immediate, and far in excess of ihe possible sacrifice. The willingncst; to co- operate instinctively could onb have come after slow centuries of experience. And so with the family learning to trust the good faith of the t; be. At first, it could hardly have ceased to watch the other co-operating familic ^ith a half-hostile eye until it was quite certain that its own life was safe on that side at all events. But slowly this new tribal loyalty became dominant. For fighting purposes, the family was gradually absorbed in the tribe. The immediate result of this was that, just as the individual had come to instinctively merge his loyalty to himself in his loyalty to the family, so loyalty to the family became absorbed in loyalty to the tribe. Families were now found willing to die for the tribe — or for the nation. Where family loyalty attempted to take precedence over tribal 58 I THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM loyalty, it became a mischievous force. Just as when the individual sought to save his own skin without regard to what became of the family, he was accused of cowardi<«:; so the family which desened the tribe or nation for its own betterment, came in for the deepest condemnation. And here we see the burial of family loyalty for fighting purposes. It had thus run its full course and lived out its usefulness; and, as it was bom because it gave the individual a better chance to survive, so it died in order to strengthen still farther this same chance of individual survival. Family loyalty or co-operation was at first unknown; then a utilitarian discovery; then a tentative experiment; then a practice; then a religion; then a bar to tribal unity; then a weakness in tribal co-operation; then tribal treason. Brutus sacrificing his son to the maintenance of a spirit of justice among the Roman people, is regarded as a noble figure. But in the days when the family was the Fight- ing Unit, he would have been looked upon as an insane traitor. Yet under the principle of Altruism, he was always bound to sacrifice first 59 %I i : tl THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM himself and then his son, if such a sacrifice would benefit thosewhom it touched. The fact is, however, that a Brutus, in the family Fight- ing Unit times, who would fail to persistently support his son against the sons of all other men, would doom his family to extinction; while a Brutus, in the Roman days, helped the nation to survive. There lies the differ- ence. In one case, the act would mean destruction first of the family and then, as a result, of the individual; in the other case, it meant survival first of the nation, and then, as a result, of the average individual. Sur- vival made the difference between a vice and virtue in the same act; and survival is the first and last word of Egoism. Sacrifice is the first and last word of Altruism; and the sacrifice would have been as great in the one case as the other. Here, then, we see family loyalty encouraged as a virtue so long as it assists survival; and we see it cast aside as a vice when it appears as a hindrance to survival. That is, the moment the Egoistic principle fails to justify brotherly love, brotherly love tends to dis- 60 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM appear. The voice of Altruism is utterly disregarded. It is not the sacrifice that hallows brother love; it is hallowed by the net benefit to the individual which grows out of it. 6i VI. THE FOLLY OF ALTRUISM Now have we not here the key of most so- called Altruism ? Do not most acts commonly called Altruistic resemble family loyalty in being the products of the plans of action, sentiments, or instincts which we have reached through co-operation for Egoistic purposes? It is not necessary even that the act itself should help co-operation. It may be only an act giving gratification to an instinct in us which is usually co-operative. Thus pity for the sufferings of others is one of the oldest and strongest sentiments or instincts which have grown into our mental fibre. It ob- viously arose from the fact that active pity or mercy tended to keep alive wounded brothers and so to preserve the strength of the family or tribe. It was, of course, more efficacious usually as it was prompt and uncalculating and so sometimes led to the succor of sufferers whose survival actually reduced the chance 62 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM of the nation or race to survive. Still, on the whole, it was better to have it prompt and occasionally mistaken than tardy and always right. But, first, let us get a closer look at Altruism in its relations to every-day life. When we cease to talk of the ultimate appeal to force and come to consider the ordinary relations of life, a man is still supposed to care first for those of his household. This is a common and familiar fact; yet, standing alone, it con- stitutes a denial of the virtue of Altruism which Altruists would be hard put to it to meet. If sacafice of one's self and one's interests to the interests of others is the supreme virtue, why should it not be a man's duty to care more for his neighbor than for his brother— for the stranger than for his neighbor ? " Otherism " must constantly lead him away from himself u'^til the command to "love your enemies" appears as its legiti- mate climax. But the common citizen need not wait for an opportunity to apply it in the extreme case of loving his enemies; he may apply it eveiy day by dividing his cash 63 THE ETIUCS OF IMPERIALISM receipts with his neighbors and letting his family go bare-footed. Altruism is as constantly denied in the transactions of every day life as in the most spirited programme of the Imperialist. And what we call the conscience — butwhat is really the ripened judgment — of mankind approves the denial in the one case as truly as in the other. We talk sentimi^ntally of Altruism being a virtue because we practice what we take for its principle so seldom. A beggar comes to the door and we give charity, and we call it Altruism, and we feel veiy virtuous; but if a thousand beggars came to the door and we emptied our house and ran ourselves in debt in order to supply them, everybody — including ourselves— would call it folly and we should feel very silly. But think of an eternal moral principle, said to emanate from the Deity and imposed upon the human race as a command, credited with bearing up our enrire system of ethics; and yet breaking down utterly under mere frequency of practice! It seems to me that those who presume to 64 THE ETHICS OP IMPEWAUSM ten u. that Altruism is the basis of Christian rom C3od. are m some danger, it we accept Ae,r own theological system, of the sin of blasphemy. One of the commonest and mest ways of testing the truth of a princ plf « to follow « to Its ultimate conclusion. But under th.s test Altruism breaks down eve,^! where after the first few steps. We go 2^ let us say, for work in the slums We saSfice our ease, our familiar comforts, our inc^^ m order to let a little more light into the dark ness of poverty. Bu, we find that we are only canymg a tallow dip i„,o the sunless Jl, 'hort of the entire surrender. Yet /,he Altrumic principle be the true prindpfe no W„verm it should have a garment orfm;: o^tXr."""'""''""^^ «'*"'-- /JtruismI Watch two people making a b.rgam Consider the common barter of mercantde life. Read the first wiU 0,."!,^ 2^^ your eye m which nearness of blood ahnost mvanably secures the larger bequest. 65 THE ETfflGS OF BIPERIALISM Visit the law courts. Take practically any step in our intricate modem life. Would it be practicable in any of these cases to consider first the interests of others? Would it be even virtuous — in the sense that it would lead to a condition of things which would secure the best development of the people practicing it ? Would it not, as a matter of fact, stop wholesome competition, smother individual eflPort, throw modem civilization out of gear, and doom the nation practicing it to defeat and finally to extinction in the battle of life ? Yet unselfishness is the sweetest thing in the world — as love is the greatest. But it is a fundamental mistake to think that unselfish- ness has necessarily the remotest connection with Altmism. We have already seen that brotherly love — ^the very flower of unselfish- ness — ^was bom of Egoism, flourished because it helped individual survival, began to shrink to narrower limits as soon as its dominance in the wider area neutralized tribal and national loyalty and so hindered individual survival, and finally became in some phases a positive vice in the national field. Proper 66 TOE ETHICS OP IMPEBULISM bro^heriy love i. developed Egoism. While and wherever supported bv ,1,. p • principle, it g„,ws »d";bei. te !^ that support is withdrawnT^J p^kTit dX::r*-""""'«^««'-3:da« . ^7. « "~ brotherly love typical of all beneficial forms of unselfishness? Are *- e«ri:„tft '" '"T' """"^ Egoistfc':,:^;^ e«oon, often condensed ,0 an instinct? L which undoubtedly saved m,- V^' brother and so kL „„ ,K ^ " 7°""''"' f,-..i "l P "P "* strength of the j^Jy.ortnbe, and which was mo« dfea We m doing th,s when it moved the merciful man to act mstamly, and we have said that, aff^- »g Its possessor like a strong appetite It «*e„ng which may come to his knowledge w«hout stopping to enquire whether or not S «uffe«r might not. for racial reasons, better be pennitted ,0 die. He«, then. «; ^e 67 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM surely the best possible exhibition of Altruistic virtue — a man giving of his time or substance to relieve the suffering of another, when the act, so far from benefiting the man who does it either directly or indirectly, aaually huns him indirectly by lessening the chances of his race to survive. Yet it is perfectly plain that such an act could arise naturally from the operation of the Egoistic instinct to succor a brother who was temporarily disabled. Here we have an instinct turning on itself, as it were — producing an act contrary to its own purpose; and yet producing it naturally. It is easy to say, of course, that while the Egoistic principle will explain mercy, it is not the true explanation. The real source of mercy, we may be told, lies in the duty of personal sacrifice for the good of the others. But again we can apply the test of universality. A true principle of ethics may be universally applied without once leading to a wrong act. To hold otherwise is equivalent to contending that the multiplication table is not always applicable. Truth is Mniversal. Twice four are always eight. If self-sacrifice is an 68 THE ETHICS OF IMPEBIAUSM «h.cal principl»-a„d no, a mere temporan, developmen. of another principle, T-tf Thus the ::ui^^::'zz'^' ».uch.oris.Mi«.„,rpaS,wrdrhr or, worse, „il|. depriving him of life HeTe' s a beautrfui opportunity for «If.sacrifi": that another may benefit; bu, a soldier who : *j!"r ' "■T" '" "*" »" "^« - hZlw »i ""'^'"''' "^""domnation of humanity. Mercy is not always right Ther, are tmies when it is wrons A„5 u sect #n CbJ • i """8- And when we seek to find a sign by which we shaU know these occasions upon which mercy is wronT of possible self-sacrifice, bu. we dways apply his/'" °'""^ "' "'"o"" ---7 tl,, u 1^ "^"'"'y «<• follow this thought through other examples. "Slum worl'^i gratification of .^^f forXh-.r^:! «9 . THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM tions, we have become a people with an appetite for philanthropy precisely as we are a people with an appetite for certian familiar colors and sounds. Propaganda work of all kinds is a very obvious gratification of self; for to what man comes a greater joy than that of persuading others to his opinion ? That this passion has its roots in the struggle for self-preservation is equally clear. The man with a good plan of campaign who could talk his tribe into it would be more likely to survive tiian one who had as good a plan but lacked powers of persuasion. In fact, the folly of imagining that Altruism is an ethical principle at all, is exposed by simply attempting to follow it to its ultimate conclusion. Altruism means selt-sacrifice for the benefit of others. An Altruistic race, then, would be a race of competitors in self- sacrifice. No one would be willing to receive the benefits; everyone would strive to make the sacrifices. The result of this must be a universal tendency toward suicide, unless we escape from this pit by the Spencerian supposition that when self-sacrifice had reached 70 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM its climax, men would begin to further lacri- fice themselves by accepting benefits which they did not want in order that other men might have the greater joy of supplying them. But the next step from this would be that every one would strive for the supreme "sacrifice" of accepting benefits, which would soon give the wheel another whirl and set every body making sacrifices in order that other people might "sacrifice" themselves by accepting benefits, which they would do that other people might make the sacrifices in the first place. An ethical principle, truly, which "Alice" might have discovered in "Wonder- land." 71 P VII. EGOISM AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS. Two corollary questions naturally arise in the mind here — (i) Is Egoism universally applicable ? Can it be followed as a principle in every case? Or is it— like Altruism— self-destructive when pushed to an extreme P (2) Will Egoism really save the system of ethics which we call Christian ? Egoism is the principle of seeking first one's own life and happiness. Civilization is but the fuller enlightenment and better equipment of Egoism. The more civilized a people, the more effective is its Egoism. From this it follows that nations relatively low in the scale of civilization have a relatively in- efficient and undeveloped Egoism; just as peoples who had advanced no farther than family loyalty would stand no chance against other peoples who had seen the wider wisdom of tribal loyalty. But the principle in each 72 THE ETHICS OP IMPERULISM cise ii exactly the lame. And the farther you push the principle-the more you develop « and apply it with inteHigence-the better are the results. It is only limited Egoism which defeats its own purpose; and this only occurs when it comes into competition with a more developed form of Egoism. Now with Altruism, the case is prcciselv contraiy. Limited Altruism seems to vvork veiy well; for it is identical with devc.'oped Egoism. But unlimited Altruism is a crimi- nal folly, culminating in suicide. Altruism forbids loyalty at every stage of its develop- ment; for whether it be the individual or the family or the tribe or the nation or the Empire to which a man is loyal. Altruism always points to another individual, family, tribe, nation or Empire which it would be highly yinuous to esteem above one's own. Altru- ism, in a word, is never right— that is, never has the approval of the general judgment— when it is truly Altruistic; it only gains the credit for being right when it is endorsed by Egoism. Egoism, on the other hand, is always right except when it is overmatched 7Z M f THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM by a more extreme and developed form of Egoism. Now as to the salvation of the system of Christian ethics. We have already seen that brotherhood, charity, pity, and all the teach- ings of ethics which are most commonly regarded as "Altruistic," are simply developed Egoism; and it seems hardly necessary to point out that the more selfish virtues — such as justice, honesty, truth, fair play, self-restraint from passions which might injure others as well as one's self—are as certainly Egoistic. A man stands a better chance of getting and keeping wealth in a community which is honest than in one which is not; everybody benefits by justice, truth, fair play and mL: s* I self-restraint. Egoism does not at any point overthrow modem ethics; it m-rely provides a new foundation for the system. When teachers of ethics, misled by the delusion that the foundation of their system was Altruism, have made false applications of their prin- ciples. Egoism prunes them away. The striking instance of this with which this whole 74 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM volume deals-in which Altruism maladroitly brings brotherhood and patriotism into con- flict— may serve as an illustration; but, unhappily, the mischief does not confine Itself to striking examples. The miasma of Altruism permeates ethical teaching with regard to all the details of eveiyday life; and the result is that the kingly rights of the mdividual, the supreme ethical value of liberty, the fundamental truth that the State has no mystic rights over the individual which have not been delegated to it by individuals, the doctrine that one man must not interfere with another man except in legitimate self- defence, and all such maxims of free and untrammelled individual development, are obscured by this sentimental haze in which much of our later moral agitation is hopelessly befogged. Many of us have lost faith in liberty; and—to paraphrase a great saying —think that the cure for misshapen evils which flow from restricted liberty, is— more restriction. A clear conception of Egoism, as the true ethical basis, would disp-1 the fog; and show that to-day, as in all the past, 75 THE ETHICS OF IMPEBIALISM a nation will always ri«c in pofwer as it tecog- nizes the right of the in^dual to peater and greater liberty. ■ 76 VIII. THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE FIGHT- ING UNIT A group of other questions here arise as to the extent to which an individual surren- ders his right of making sure of survival to the community which constitutes the Fight- ing Unit, the time at which he makes his surrender, the relations of any surrendered rights to similar rights he retains, and the circumstances under which he might resume his surrendered rights. To begin with, it is perfecdy clear that the individual surrenders only a small part of such rights to the community. If another man assaults him on the public streets, he can protect himself as best he may until the community comes to his assistance, but he is expected tc leave all subsequent steps in the matter to the community. But if this other man puts his livelihood in danger by starting a rival shop near his, or by trying to get his 77 Il THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM potiticm away from him through superior ment, the community seldom interferes at any stage. The man must protect himself. We are accustomed to look upon these two forms of aggression as entirely different; but, so far as the basic question of survival goes, they are nearly identical, the permitted aggression being, if anything, the more deadly. Again, there are certain forms of fraud with respect so which the community will take up the quarrel of the individual; but there are other forms of fraud — say, those incident to every-day retail trading — in which the indi- vidual is expected to defend himself. Then the community will zealously guard everything a man may have — ^which is an important aid to survival — but it does not pretend to help him to get anything— which might be a far more effective aid. Now what is the real distinction between these different instances? Why does the community do certain things for the individual while not attempting to do certain other things? These questions are not answered by saying that the community merely proposes 78 ..t S'tB^TSmi THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM to "sec fair" between its different members— to keep order and do justice— an excellent working rule which is not always very well lived up to. The question "Why?" still remains unanswered. Why does the com- munity confine itself to keeping order and doing justice? Simply because this is all it can do for the individual better than the individual can for himself. This is the test, and the only test. People sometimes talk as if the prin- ciples laid down by certain thinkers, such as liberty being a cure-all for social evils, and the limitation of the funaions of the state mentioned above, were the arbitrary dicta of doctrinaires; when they are, in reality, nothing but deductions from long experience. There is no arbitrary moral commandment against the state making a I A'ing for the individual; there is only the crushing prohibi- tive that the state cannot make livings for its individual members as well as they can separately make livings for themselves. If there is anything which we can do better as a state than we can do as individuals, there 79 lim THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM is no reason why we should not do it that way. Everything that we do is intended to aid survival and happiness. In this respect, all our acts are precisely alike. There is nothing in the nature of any one of them which makes it more a state duty than another. If the state — that is, the combined individuals— could make our livings better than we can acting separately, and if the individual could defend his property better than the state can, then, undoubtedly, we would reverse the present position and the state would keep store for us while we personally ran down and adminis- tered punishment to thieves. In fact, one army of social reformers believe that the state can best keep store for us, and no one will oppose the Socialistic propaganda on the ground that -i .:'ontravenes any law imbedded in the nature uf things. The one test is, as we have said : " Can the state do this better than the individual"; and it is over this ques- tion that the Socialist and the Individualist join issue. The things which to-day the individual permits the state to do for him are the things 80 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM which the accumulated experience of gene- rations has convinced him the state can do better than he can. Slowly, suspiciously, one by one, only after the most entire con- viction, has he surrendered the doing of these things to the state. When the individual first co-operated with the family— the first state— he retained all his rights of self- preservation. If a brother struck him, they probably fought it out. From that time down to the present day, we are to conceive him gradually discovering new things which it would be in the common interest to permit the state to look after. So late as Old Testa- ment times, even murder was punished by the family which had suffered from it. In new communities to-day, a man is expected to do most of his own fighting. In the most civi- lized modem community, he is expected to do his own mental fighting; he is expected to protect his possessions from all the subtler forms of theft; he is expected to protect himself and his property by physical force unless the community be present in such overwhelming power as to be able to do it 8i THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM much more effectively; he is, in short, expected to look after himself and fight his own battles in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Now in this lies, too, the answer to the second question— When does the individual give up any part of h > primal right of self- defence? He gives it up when he is fully convinced that he will be better defended at that point by giving it up. The individuals who make up the state would never permit the state to undertake any tadc on their behalf which they thought they could do with better average results themselves. The indi- vidual is to-day, in civilized communities, persuaded that he will be better off as a rule if he abandons the right to use physical force in promoting his self-preservation — except in such cases as it is plain he would be worse off, such as when he finds a burglar in his house at night; and in such cases he still retains the right to use it. Now in talking of Imperialism, we are talking, of course, of the use of physical force. The individual may no longer kill a man simply for the purpose of making his own position better 82 ci»:^k^^iF . THE ETHICS OP IMPERULISM in the world; but the Imperiahsing nation may kill thousands of men for this veiy purpose. And the only reason why the individual may not still kill men for this purpose is because he IS convmced that a mutual abandonment of this right by all the individuals in the community will greatly increase the chances of all to survive. T! c consequence is that the mdividual has deeded over to the state his whole right to use physical force, either to advance his interests or to protect them— except in certain rare cases-and this has been done only after the growth of a strong general belief that his interests will be im- measurably safer under the shelter of state protection. The situation is, then, that the individual defends himself, and fortifies himself against attack, and generally endeavors to survive, m nearly all the relationships of life without state intervention; but that where communal action has proven itself to be much better than individual action, communal action IS relied on. But there is no difference, in character, between the rights he surrenders, 83 ■Mf^ani. THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM and the rights he retains. As to the circum- stances under which he might resume his surrendered rights, that is not— so long as he remains in the community— a question for the individual at all. A community is, of course, a growth; but, at any given time, it is practi- cally a society governed by certain rules. An individual cannot insist upon staying in the society and breaking the rules. He must either acquiesce in the rules or leave the society. He can, of course, agitate for a change of rules; and he will get his change when he has arrayed superior force in its favor. Under representative government, the test of force is usually the counting of noses; but he can always appeal from this arbitrary test to the red court of force itself. The law is, then, that the individual does his own fighting in every case until a greater power— of which he is a part— 94 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM But we have now four praaic^lly independent n,t..n. m hearty alliance un<',r ,he British "g. The formation ofihe German Empire hough late in hi«ory, i, harily «, remarkaWe moirr" °^'"^'""«! <•" « " '"lly nothing more than France. Spain, the British hie! lZ,l'f """"'"""-^"ooi^. accomplished ong before But the raffroeh,„„, b^een the Bnt«h and American peoples is an •ncourag.„g indicaeU of L 'possilu^ of an even longer stride fo,ward. This is n« -let It be marked-an alliance of two Govern- me„« so much as the clarifying of the vision of two peoples which enables them to see that hev r'u """^ """«» " """-"on tha they should come near enough together to •Jnit. War between them is now practically unpo.s.ble-using the word "impoUle" ^ the hn,„ed s«.se „ which we would say that the dm,,on of the German Empim is „ow .mposs,ble";-and, at many Lnt,. „;" agamst a foreign nation would be under.aken «og«h.r. Neither would pe^m,t the oTh« to be crushed. Thus far they have trL^di;: 95 m THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM the outline of a new and larger Fighting Unit. When we look to the future we can have no doubt except as to probable dates. As Britain and the United States have come to see that war between them is contrary to the self-interest of the overwhelming majority of both peoples, and have forbidden it, so before long all the peoples whom we now include under the loose term of European civilization will no more permit war to break out between them than an orderly city will permit brawling and rioting in the streets. The merchant with his brave show of plate glass is not opposed to stone-throwing in front of it simply from an Altruistic fear that some of the poor fellows whc are doing the throwing will prt hurt; but he fears for his glass, and he ^ •es not want customers kept away fron . the store by reason of a dread of injury in the streets. Civilization is now a street of merchants. War between nations no longer means that the merchants under one flag will steal the property of merchants under the other. Consequently merchants have everything to 96 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM lose and nothing to gain by w,-,. Their ships arc taken; the highways of the world are made unsafe; the purchasing power of their cus- tomers ,s decreased; their plate glass is apt to get broken. Just so soon as fhcy can overcome the various influences tl^at make for war-race rival^r, dynastic and aristo- cratic ambition, and the belief of many of their own number that small exclusive market is better than free access to all the markets of the «rorld-they will stop war. Of course, there will be police operations as there are m the quietest city. hese operations will naturally take place m the darker comers of the globe-in the world's •^ims. But there --ill not be many of them- for most of the little wars with savage tribeJ are to-day not police operations at all. but movements on the great chess board of inter- national nvalry. When civilization itself, and not , he single civilized nation, has become the Fightmg Unit, peace will pretty well have come-not by disarming thepassionate friends ir^^'V!^"'^ '^^"*^' ''« ^y ^«eping commanding force in the hands of the mer- 97 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM chant peoples whose clamorous self-interest daily demands peace. Peace is only to be defended by the weapons of war. The moment peace lays aside its rifle, barbarism will reach for its bow and arrows. When ? When will the nations of civili- lization come together? Precisely at the same time when the families came together to form the tribe-that is, when they feel that their individual safety is assured. We cannot fix the date now— the date will never be fixed. It will be the slow growth of mutual trust in each other's good faith-and good sense. It will be a long series of tentative advances, false alarms, resentful retirements to the old positions, venturings forth again into nearer proximity, always accompanied by an increasing confidence in the genuineness of a neighbor's conversion to the obvious mutual advantage to be reaped from peace. 98 X. IMPERIALISM But, whatever the future may contain, the I-ighting Unit is to-day the nation. The employment of force for self-preservation, which--as we have seen-has been gradually widenmg away from the individual in an ever- enlargmg circle, is now no nearer to him than the national boundaiy. Inside of that boun- daty when certain of his rights are assailed he appeals to the community for protection, having abrogated in these respects his natural right to protect himself in the mutual interest of civil peace. But when the nation itself IS attacked, there is as yet-in most cases- no community to which it can appeal. It must protect itself. And it can never be in a better position until overwhelmingly supenor force is pledged to protect its rights. Those who fancy that there is any protection for any person or thing, except the protection of brute force, are deceiving themselves with 99 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM roseate fancies. The veiy Peace Society holds its sessions in security because the force of the community is arrayed to protect the right of free assembly. Now the place of Imperialism in the play of the world's forces becomes apparent. It is a fore-handed phase of national self- protection. It is, in other words, a policy of national self-preservation which does not wait for the flood to come before it begins to build the ark. It is a nation making sure, and doubly sure, if possible, of its life. In business, every wise man is an Imperial- ist. He does not stop working when his next meal is assured him. He does not wait for starvation, or even discomfort, to knock at his door before he prepares to repel it. If he does, we call him shiftless and impru- dent; and, other things being equal, he fails to survive. Independence is the goal toward which every real man is struggling. He seeks to surround himself with financial bastions and out-works and "spheres of influence" and invincible squadrons, until no foe that he can think of can possibly hope to pierce 100 THE ETHICS OP IMPEKIALKM through >nd aab him in his uttermost old a« And even then mos. men are no. content. They go on pihng up wealth and influence and power far beyond the apparent needs of themseves o, their families. Sometimes th^s IS justified by the menace of other st^ng men agamst the.r interests; and sometimes if « merely an evidence that what was at firs, an unwekome necessity, became a habi., and hen an ms.,nct, and then an appetite. The Imperialism of the business man far exceeds the most rampant Imperialism of the greatest jmgo nation of modem times c.^^r't ["■P^""'"" l>«. indeed, in no case of whKh one can think, far outstripped ^J7 obvious needs of the nation which n^ I "• England, for instance, is a nation of traders, to whom markets are a vital necessity. Strip her of India, forbid her to hope for anything in the Africa of the future, close the door on her in China, take awa; her colonies; and what would she become? Probably a sea>nd HoUand. Her industries would close and her workmen would be given a choice between starvation and emigration to loi THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM a land which secured more scope for the activities of its people. What man who, in his private businers found himself in a position comparable to that of England, would be less Imperialistic ? ,.1 The Imperialism of Russia is more mediaeval because her form of government is mediaeval. When we say "Russia," we mean not the entire Russian people but a Russian oligarchy; and it is patently to the interests of this oligarchy to extend Russian rule as far as it can. Still we may as well point out in passing that the ambition of Russia to get ice-free ports on the Bosphorus and the Yellow Sea, is an exceedingly English sort of trade Im- perialism. Then the rise of the Impenalistic spirit m the United States was synchronous with her need for outside markets. Strictly speakmg, the Americans have always been Imperialistic. The Louisianapurchasewas pure Impenalism though it did not call for any fighting. But who doubts that the fighting would have occurred had the need existed ? The Civil War was a display of Northern Impenalism; 102 Siii THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM for it was nothing more nor less than the determination of the North that its existence and prosperity as a free, peaceful and indus- trial nation should not be menaced by the creation of a rival Republic south of the line But as long as American Imperialism was confined to the North American conrinent- which was just as long as the growing require- ment of the American people for more room and wider markets could be satisfied on that Continent-we did not call it Imperialism. Now however, that the American merchant people find it possible and profitable to reach out after the opening market of Asia, they begm to show some of the more familiar traits of Imperialism; and some who have grown old under the delusion that this spirit .was something quite difl=erent so long as it remamed cooped up between the Canadian border, the Mexican Gulf and the two oceans, are now mightily alarmed at the "new mani- festation," It is about as new as the primor- dial slime. It must not be forgotten, in considering Imperialism, that we are dealing with the 103 i m f Mil THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM Fighting Unit, in connection with which, wc saw in a former chapter, there is little dis- tinction between defensive and offensive fighting. "The Fighting Unit," we said, "employs physical force— as well as mental and all other forces— to secure life and happi- ness, and it matters little whether it be to fight defensively against a hungiy enemy or to fight aggressively for food.'* It will not do then to think of the Imperialising nation as fighting only when its interests are attacked. It will fight just as readily when, by attacking another nation, it can serve its own interests. I'his diflPerence between defensive and offen- sive fighting, of which we make so much, is an artificial distinction set up by civilization. In our eflFort to limit the number of occasions upon which an individual may lawfully "break the peace," we have ingeniously shut out one whole diss of occasions by sayir^ that, of course, he may not do so unless provoked or attacked. That is, he cannot himself initiate a breach of the peace. This, at a blow, cuts in half the danger of physical conflict within the limits of the state, which 104 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM abundantly justifies the artificial distinction. And there is this much nature in it— that a man can more easily restrain himself from u-mg physical force when only urged thereto by greed than when incited by the pain and fear produced by a physical attack upon his person. But the wild animal, when it was a Fighting Unit, knew no such distinction. It fought as readily to obtain food as to defend it It merely employed physical force in order to make as sure as possible of life and happiness and ,t cared nothing whether it or another opened the hostilities. Indeed, it was likely to prefer the advantage of the "first blow " The pure artificiality of this distinction appears again when we consider the employ- ment agamst each other by individuals of all other kmds of force except the physical. Two rival grocers, who would not think of throwing stones through each other's windows, employ ail the mental force they possess to conquer the empire" of custom or trade for which they are both competing. They study the desires and the whims of their customers; 105 i; THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM they display their goods attractively; they invest in striking delivery vans; they even send out canvassers. And there is never p thought that one grocer shall not strike along a par- ticular line until he has first been attacked at that point by his competitor. His virtue is rather to strike first. The man who would only fallow the lead of hi »ival would be judged to be without enterprise or initiative. So in the whole business world, mental force is used to the topmost power of each man to "conquer** his competitors; and it is the offensive fighter who gets the praise and the victory. The only occasions upon which offensive fighting of this character is thought to be mistaken is when it stirs up a powerful enemy who might otherwise have been quiescent. Now the nation is the Fighting Unit, and so employs physical force in the same manner as the business man employs mental force. It endeavors to make sure of its survival by the use of its physical strength; and it has no more scruple about attacking an inoffen- sive nation than a grocer has of taking a cus- io6 THE ETHICS OF IMPEKIALISM tomer from another grocer who may never have taken one from him. The United States wanted the Philippines, and it took them. There are a number of more indirect and pleasmg ways of stating this; but they are only more pleasing because of this arti- ficial distmction in our minds between offen- sive and defensive fighting. We think that If we can show that we were in some way attacked or provoked before putting fonh our rtrength, then the employment of physical force becomes thereby justified. Thus the American Imperialist would relate how the ternble state of affairs in Cuba constituted n?I^D?r "P°" ^'"'* ""^ '^^' '^^ taking of the Phihppmes was but an act of war in the ensmng conflict with Spain. But he would find It a more difficult task to show how the i^Uipinos were the aggressors and so justified his assault upon their independence. The truth IS, however, that the American nation Jelt the need-commercially-of the Phil- ippmes precisely as Britain has long felt the need, commercially, of India; and when the fortunes of war made it possible for her to 107 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM leize the islands without the risk of embroiling any of the other stronger powers, she seized them. The Spanish wnr did not play the part of a provocation, but it brought about an international situation which made the seizure of the islands a safe proceeding. The first step toward the e»a of univer- sal peace will very probably be the abandon- ment of this right to seek national benefit by aggression. Tlie fact that Impcrialising nations are now so eager to make it appear that they have been indirectly attacked before they think of going forth to annex or assimi- late or control some weaker nation, shows that public opii.-Dn is already very largely, if veiy loosely, igainst aggressive Imperialism. This is, of course, almost wholly an unconscious extension of domestic ethics to the wider field of international rivalry; and it docs not really stand in the way of an aggressive nation when the interests of aggression are plain. Still it is a force not to be despised; for there is probably no better way of teaching the people the advantages of international peace than to invite them to consider the ad- io8 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM vantaget which civil peace hat brought them. We are a long way yet, however, from any real abandonment of this right of -ggrewive war. It can only come in the international arena in the sam^ way that it came in the domestic or civil field. No individual has ever given up his right to use physical force aggressively for his own benefit unless it was literally pur- chased from him by superior advantages. We in a modem state cheerfully forego any such right, because we are convinced that the mutua' agreement not to aggress physi- cally produces a condition of things from which we get far greater advantages than we could possibly hope to secure by fighting for them. In a word, we have given up physical aggression because we have fo md that it pays to do so. Civil peace, like honesty, is the best policy. In the same way will international peace come, and the first step toward it will probably be a world-wide agreement not to aggress, the other nations being the judges whether any specific "military operations" are aggressive 109 THE ETHICS OF IMFERIALISBi or not. An optimist might think that we were veiy near this agreement now; but a Thibetan or a C>rean or a Filipino or a Moor or almost any native of Afr' might have a different opinion. v\ncl certainly until security from aggression is absolute and ..niversal, the right to aggress will ne'er be ab>«ndoned. The conditions, as I write, look more like increasing than decreasing the amount of national aggression. For centuries China has been practically on a peace basis. She did not aggress, and only asked to be let alone. But the world has not let her alone. And it may easily be that the attacks of Europe and America, and the inspiring ex- ample of Japan, will persuade her that, in this Christian era, peace is not the best policy — whatever it may have been under Confucius — and that she had better become one of \.ht aggressive nations. Should this h..<.ppen, the pleasant prophets of peace may as well make a new almanac. The point, however, that I am at pains to make plain now is that Imperialism is not wholly defensive. It is prej^ervative. no THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM National pretervation rather than national defence, ii iti object. Some of the great powen of the world tell ui that they want no more territory— that they only desire to defend what they havej and then they very •hrewdly accompany this statement with an explanation upon which they depend to carry conviction to our minds— viz. ;—that they already have as much territory as they can profitably control. In the same way and for the same reason, every prudent business man limits the scope of his operations. But even with these satisfied nations, defence of what they have sometimes implies taking more territory in order to make sure of the ap- proaches. Thus a Bridsh expedirion must go into Thibet in order to protect the glacis of the fortress of India on that side. Still, even though r^me nations may have enough territory, others have not. Germany, for instance, only lacks a powerful fleet to go in for colonizing on a vast scale. The peoples of central Europe generally show by their readiness to emigrate that they feel the pres- sure of over-crowding very keenly; and it is III THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM likely that only opportunity is wanting for a general movement by the mercantile classes who would like new markets, and the agri- cultural classes who would like new fields, toward a policy of Imperial extension. Italy, burdened as it is financially, made a disastrous venture in East Africa; and France, loth as her people are to leave their native land, is always on the outlook for her share of the Continent to the South. China is the gravest example of over-crowding in the worid; and if she becomes Imperialistic, we may have to con- struct some new Atlases. Thus we may regard all nations as being actually or potentially Imperialistic. Some are not aggressively so — as, for example* Holland— because they no longer have the power; while others— like the Turk— are quiet through the decay of the ancient spirit. But every nation lives in an Imperialistic worid; and if it does not strain every nerve to strengthen itself and thus make sure of its future preservation, it may be very certam that other nations will become relatively more powerful. What this means for the somnolent 112 I THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM or the self-restrained nation, history^ teaches. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." Spain still bleed- ing for her colonies, Turkey reft of Egypt and the Balkan provinces, tell the tale. What- ever the moralists may preach, the patriots have happily no delusions on this point. They know that the power of the nation must be kept up. The world is to-day practically parcelled out between the great powers. 1 here are, of course, nations left independent which could be conquered; but they are defended by three very real forces-the balance of power, the jealousies of neighbors and the cost of conquest. But let any of the great powers cease to be Imperialistic before the formation of a dominant inter- national community has relegated Im- penahsm to the obsolete class of self-preserva- tive efforts, and it will soon find itself shoul- dered out of the position it has occupied and finally stnpped of the possessions which have made for the wealth of its people. But may not possessions be a burden to "3 i 1 ' THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM a nation? Possibly. That is a question for each nation to settle in respect to each possession. To undertake the conquest or the control of a country which costs more than it comes to, is an Imperialistic mistake and will lead to disaster; exactly as a business man may ruin himself by trying to extend his business operations too far. This is an op- portunity for the exercise of judgment. Un this ground patriots may legitimately oppose Imperialistic liiovements-a subject we will discuss more fully in the next chapter. The purpose of Imperialism is to strengthen, not io wear out, a nation. If a people indulge so freely in pharisaical chatter about their "duty" toward weaker and more backward peoples that they come to believe that they are conquering them for the benefit of the conquered, they may be led into undertaking "duties" of this kind which will prove to be burdens. Or if a people permit their greed to outrun their prudence, they niay suffer for it. But a wise Imperiahsm, which only extends the rule of its nation when definite and dearly-seen advantages are to be secured, "4 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM will not accumulate possessions which are likely to be burdens. (11 .4 "5 ff~ i 1 i i tl 11 ! XL THE CITIZEN AND IMPERIALISM Now what is the right attitude, morally speaking, of the citizen toward Imperialism ? This is a question at which the Altruist and the Egoist must definitely part company. To the Altruist, Imperialism is a violent reversal of the basic principle upon which he has come thus far. Hitherto his highest conception of virtue has been to serve others. He may not have always lived up to it, but it has been to him the desirable climax of moral excellence. When, however, he comes to the national boundary with Imperialism, and meets there his brother Boer or his Brother Filipino or his Brother Russian or any other Brother Enemy armed against him, his highest virtue is not to serve him but to smite him. He must here take leave at once either of his Altruistic principles or of his Imperialistic ^"-ThT Egoist, on the other hand, faces no ii6 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM such difficulty. He has always proceeded on the theory that self-preservation was the first law of morality as well as of nature-if, indeed, there be any difference. He may have been a slum worker and thus shown his love for h,s brother man; but he has never been self-deceived into believing that this was anythmg more than a display of enlight- ened self-mterest on his part. He has loved his brother like a brother; but he has never pushed h,s conception of brotherliness beyond the brotherhood. He would rather win an enemy over rhan fight him. He would go as a missionaiy for any cause in which he beheved mto any country; for that would satisfy two of his strongest desires-the spreading of the philosophy which he thinks will make this a better world to live in, and the satisfymg of every man's personal appetite to convmce others. But he has no haziness as to the reality of a national enemy-that is a man in a position of enmity to his country! When this attitude of enmity becomes definite unmistakable and active, and it is a case' of kill or be killed, he has no fetich of "sacri- 117 THE ETHICS OF IMPERULISM fice" to stay his hand-he has no thought that it is a duty to consider first the interests of these "hostile others"-he has not even to do violence to any notion of virtue within himself. The aboriginal struggle for existence is on again, and his highest conception of virtue is patriotism. For patriotism, he will make his sacrifices; for brother patriots, he will suffer and die; for the nation, he will willingly put His own interests in a common Tow I am perfectly aware that the theo- retical Altruist will do all this in practice. He is commonly a very good patriot. But this is only a return to the paradox with which we began-i.e., that nations which profess what we call Christian ethics whose first word is "sacrifice," are always overwhelmingly Imperialistic, a spirit whose only justification is the righteousness of preserving one s selt at the cost of others. But the Altrmst can be a patriot, and especially an Impenahstic patriot who takes time by the fore-lock, only by abandoning his Altruism; while the Egoist could only escape being a patriot by showmg n8 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM his Egoism to be so unintelligent as lot yn to have reached the knowledge that the preservation of the nation is the surest means of securing to himself the highest average chances of survival. The next question that naturally arises is whether all Imperialistic movements are to be regarded as right. Is eveiy Imperialistic war to be supported ? Nothing is easier than to state the principle by which every such case must be tested. It is merely a question as to whether the movement or the war will streng- then the chances of the Imperializing nation to survive. But, the sentimentalist will ciy, have the people against whom it is made no rights m the matter ? Not a right that is bmdmg upon the Imperialising people. On their own side, they have the right to defeat the movement and so themselves survive, if they can. But the Imperialising people have no busmess with that. Their single duty is to survive. If by respecting the wishes of the other people-say, a feeble people-they can m reality more surely make certain of their own survival, then it is their duty to respect 119 n. I.: Ik THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM them; but it is a duty based upon the fa« that it increases the power of the Imperial people and not for a moment upon any claim of the " Imperialised" people to be heard. Now this is the teaching of Egoism un- diluted-and with an unusual frankness; and it is altogether likely that any Altruists who have obeyed their principle devotedly enough to read this volume thus far will think that here at last' I have uncovered the cloven hoof which they rather suspect Egoism to have inherited from its parent. A denial that any nation in the path of an Impenalistic movement has any rights which the Impenal- ising nation is bound to regard, is a denial of much of the "talk" with which even Imperialists often accompany their aggres- sions. This is especially so when the nation which the steam-roller of Imperialism is about to obliterate, is a weak nation. From all sides we hear then much solemn preaching about the "true interests" and the real rights" of the people who are marked ou for "benevolent assimilation" or paternal guidance," until a visitor from Mars might 1 20 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM imagine that the war was being undertaken solely for the benefit of the misguided nation which was so foolish as to resist "genuine hberty" and "a prosperous future" when they were offered it as free gifts. But if the Egoistic principle be the true one, the one question which the Imperialising people must ask itself is—" Will this make for my survival ?" The moment you require It to consider the rights or the interests of the opposing nation, you take the position that another nation can have a right which has a superior claim upon your consideration to your own right to survive. Now any such rights which the opposing nation can have, must, of course, assist that opposing nation to survive. Consequently to ask that the Imperialising people shall permit any nght of the opposing people to limit the action which their own right to survive seems to require, is to ask that they put the right of the opposing people to survive above their own right to survive. This would be Altru- ism; and its logical results would be that, when two people cannot both survive, it is the duty 121 I 'i ■': fiv i ll THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM of each to efface itself for the sake of the other. Under this teaching, patriotism would become immoral selfishness; love of country would be ashamed to show its face in the presence of love of a neighboring country; competing merchants would race each other into bank- ruptcy so that the "survivors" might have the better field; and competing worknen would seek a hero's death in the chamber of suicide. ^ ^ • • i r Now the working out of the pnnciple ot the absolute and universal dominance of the right of every nation to make its survival sure, is mitigated by the fact that a kindly treatment of the Imperialised people is almost always in the inte :st of the Imperialising people. The old practice of tearing a nation up by the roots, sowing its cities with salt, and carrying its people off into servitude, would not "pay" under modem conditions. We know much better than that now. Slavery has, for instance, been outlawed by civilization, it having been found that the practice was much more of a menace to the chances of survival enjoyed by any people than the 122 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM poMibility of thus getting free labor was a help. This, of course, refers to white slavery. Opposition to black slavery on the part of "whites" is largely a blend of the instinctive belief in the wisdom of individual liberty which has beco.'ne one of the mightiest evolutionary forces in the human breast, and of the pity for all sufFerihg which has grown out of the great benefits which have corn- to such as made it a practice to succor suffering men and animals. A conquered people are now treated in a very different manner. As we have said at the outset, their treatment depends upon the opinion of the conqueror as to what particular course will pay him best. Oermany demands an indemnity from Franco; Bntam makes a grant to the Boers; but this' does not mean that the Boers had superior nghts over their conqueror to the French- only that Germany thought it in her interest to cnpple France, while Britain thought it in her interest to make the Boers contented. The test, however, is, in every case, no matter what softer professions may be made the Egoistic question-" What will best make 123 ir IT ^ J yi' THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM for our power?" And that is the proper tett— the right test— the moral test. Pend- ing the formation of an international com- munity, with international courts capable of enforcing their "findings," the nation is to-day in the position of the family when the family was the Fighting Unit. It must make sure of its survival first. Like the business man, it stn-i^gles always toward "independence." The true course then for the clearheaded citizen is to study the foreig?> policy of his country with an eye single to this duty of survival. When he thinks that a threatened war will weaken the nation, he should oppose it— and should oppose it on that ground; but once the majority have decided against him, and war has commenced, he can have no duty but to help push it to as successful a conclusion as is possible. Thus Egoism solves another question with which the lecture-hall morality of our time is so disturbed:— i.e., how can a man enthusi- astically give his support to a war which he opposed before it broke out and which he believes to be wrong? On the Altruistic 124 i UPii THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM principle, he cannot; and it ii hard, indeed, to «« how he can give his lupport to any war at all. Count ToUtoi, with his doctrine of entire non-resistance, is a logical Altruist. But to the Egoist, the good or bad policy of a war ceases to be a live issue the moment war becomes inevitable. He only opposed the war because it would hurt his own country; and now that war has come, despite his pro- tests, it IS clear that this same principle of thinking first of his own countiy must lead him to tiy to bring her out of a bad business as nearly victorious as ht can. If it was bad -because it was rislcy-for her to enter upon the war, it will be ten times as bad if she actually loses any shred of prestige in the war through the failure of his section of the people to do their utmost to make her successful. Another delicate question is answered at the same rinie—i.e., how can both sides be nghtmawar? They are right in most wars. That is, they are each fighting for survival. Both are morally right in doing this, unless the going to war at all was for either of them a blow at its own chances to survive. "5 11* THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM All these things are believed by the people, no matter what their moral teachers may have persuaded them to say, parrot-fashion. They believe that it is unpatriotic for a citizen to criticise the course of his country in going to war at all while the war rages. They believe that their country is always right when it goes to war— unless the war is a disaster. Wars are judged, not by pretended "causes," but by results. The common man pays, indeed, little attention to "causes" except for contro- versial purposes with a critic. He knows that it is his side against the other side, and he is for his own side. Much confusion of thought comes from the false "causes" of war which are so generally advertised. Practi- cally, there is one "cause" for all wars, whether of the jungle, of the battle-field or of the stock exchange. 126 XII. THE SOCIAL REFORMER AND IMPERIALISM That Imperialism often acts as a bar to domestic reform, no student of politics will deny. And this fact alone is enough to damn It m the mind of a man who has never cast his eye far enough afield to discern that, without the spirit of which Imperialism is the modem manifestation, domestic reform would be impossible. Kipling sings derisively of those who " think the Empire still Is the Strand and Holbom Hill;" but they are no more short-sighted than any who imagine that there is no vital connection between social reform and national defence. Yet unless the gate be held against the enemy, It IS of little use to trouble about "the problem of the unemployed" inside. A man might as well devote his whole attention to improving the plumbing of a house which was already on fire. 127 if 1 9 ! ! ■ |M ' ^i 4 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM Still this circumstance that Imperialism has been so often employed by the champions of privilege to scatter the forces of socia reform, has resulted in arraying most social reformers against it. On the other hand, what might be called "the aristocratic party in most countries is always actively Imperi- alistic, and finds itself able to overwhelm the democracy almost at will by the simple device of crying out that "the nation is m danger. A whole set of influences tend to rivet this connection between the beneficiaries of " privi- lege" and Imperialism, and to make perma- nent the divorce between the enemies of " privilege" and Imperialism. To begin with, an aristocracy seldoms thinks it to be a duty to carry Altruism much farther than the spending of the small change of charity. It is convinced of its own rightful superiority, and thinks it quite natural that it should enjoy privileges which are denied to less fortunate mortals. It sees that this happens every day at home; and so is not inclined to question the mysterious "dispensations of Providence" when the nation to which it 128 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM belongs is set to rule over another nation A democrat, on the other hand, never has the word "equality" ofF his lips. His notion of Altruism is not charity, but the giving of his life to a fight for justice for his fellow man. He goes to the slums, not primarily to deliver alms or even to scatter the largess of education and bathing facilities, but to preach a noble discontent and to distil into the minds of the most hopelessly discouraged and submerged the belief that they have as many rights as the Duke with his acres or the trust king" with his crocks. Naturally such a worker, believing . . ^ding principle to be Altruism, talking or ..e brotherhood of man, is passionately ready to defend the rights of the Boer or the Filipino against the superior force of his own nation. He is not sarisfied with the idea that his nation can govern these people better than they can govern themselves-an idea which fits in perfectly with the theory of life entertained by the aristocrat. The democrat maintains for them the right to misgovern themselves If they want to; argues that only by working 129 i Iff'; IJi 1 : Iri THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM out their own destiny can a people make real progress; and declares that a conquering force can bring no gift in its hand at all equal in value to the liberty which it filches. Con- sequently he is anti-imperialistic for conscience S2I.K6* Then the great sport of war has usually been played by the aristocrat. Private soldiers are the pawns with which he plays. For him, the battle-field is the bed of glory; and his worid offers him such sweet rewards for prowess in war that the doors of the Temple of Janus are to him his widest doors of opportunity. But the democrat goes to war with the private soldier, who seldom eets glory except in unindividualised masses, and to whom it is "a day', work" of a brut- alising sort. Then there is, of course, the effects upon politics of which we have already -poken. Imperialism protects"privilege,"both directly and indirectly. If both democrat ar d aristo- crat were equally Imperialistic, a great war would-none the less-distract attention from home politics. But this effect is magnified 130 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM by the fact that the democrat is generally in open antagonism to Imperialism, and the people are unwilling to trust him with the guiaance of the nation when they think that a forward movement should be made. Thus just when the democrat has secured the attention of the people and shown them that they are suffering because of the existence of certain privileges enjoyed by "the classes," and just as "the classes" are expecting to be stripped of these much cherished advantages, the flag of Imperialism is raised, and the democrat i. left without a following and the pnvileges" are once more saved. Hence nothing is more natural than that the aristocrats should be Imperialistic and tfie democrats anti-imperialistic. But it is doubtful if either of them is actuated by as true motives as those which move the great mass of the people who instinctively rush to the defence of the nation when, at any time or for any cause, the national flag has gone under Sre. The time may be badly chosen and the alleged "cause" may be outrageous; but the people know that the 131 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM worse the time, the more need is there to rally to the flag, and that all "causes" are but pretences except the cause of national self- preservation. We have said that "Imperialism protects privilege;" and in so far as a nation cannot fight for its national existence and attend to internal improvements at the same time, this must always be so. But with most nations, if this were the only time and way in which Imperialism protected privilege, it would amount to very little in the long lifeof a people. The protection which Imperialism gives to that feeling of internal security, which is the necessary atmosphere of social reform, would be immensely greater. Imperialism would become in that case the guardian and ally of social reform; for exactly the same reason that a man can give more attention to his book in a sheltered town house than in a woodland hut with possible hostile Indians prowling about. And this is the way in which Impenalism would ever affect social reform, if social reformers were always sincere and enthusi- 132 r \ THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM astic Imperialists. If the people felt that it was as safe to trust a. democratic as an aristo- cratic government with the guidance of the nation m a time of international unrest, they would never put a democratic govern- ment out of office or regard a democratic party as "politically impossible" simply because wars or rumors of wars filled the air It IS hard, indeed, to see when they would dismiss a reforming government at all. l^nvilege, when it must stand alone, is mdefensible; and a democracy with the ballot will always condemn it to death. The democracy only stays its hand when it fears to shoot at "privilege" lest it hit something else. The friends of "privilege" are veiy adroit at getting it under cover; but it hides nowhere so often or so effectively as behind the belief that only the privileged classes can be depended upon to defend the nation. Let the democrats once uproot that popular belief and they will have struck the greatest blow for human emancipation which has been seen since the discovery of printing. And why should they not uproot that ^33 ill i i THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM belief? Imperialism is the proper display of Egoism in an age in which the great nations are manoeuvring over the vast battle-field of the world, hoping to make actual war unnecessary by the skill with which they take up their positions for it. Imperialism will be the right policy until the nations are safe without it. Nothing but the delusion of Altruism could induce democratic leaders to think otherwise. They imagine, because they are giving their lives to a fight for justice for their fellow men, that they are moved by a devotion to the interests of these fellow men. If a dog, rescuing one of his own "pack" from drowning, is an Altruist, then they are Altruists; but if this be Altru- ism, then Altruism is nothing but the enlightened Egoism of "pack loyalty," hardened into an instinct. And that same enlightened Egoism will make the "pack" fight every other "pack" on sight. The democratic leader does nothing at home which enlightened Egoism would not require him to do. He is endeavoring to save his brother man in the way that seems to him to be 134 THE ETHICS OP IMPEBULISM the b«,, which is precisely what the aristocrat IS doing when he organizes a "night school" :Vr' ''""''« f''"''f-">e'poor;Tnd which IS precisely what ,he soldier is doine, al» when he carries off a wounded comrade whlh h -i '^ '■"'""« °'' ''"'herhood which began with the family, and was carried on to the tribe and then to the nation. Nor .s It .Wy tha, the democratic leader, with his truth in TT^ "■'"«' ^"' ""^ '"king truth in the face, would have thought of callmg 1, Altruism, if this designation had not been suggested to him by the school of Al mistic ethics which pervades the com- muni^ and is especially acrive in "rescue work among the poor. But, having accepted r\h false doctrine or Altruism f™m his co-workers, the demo- cratic leader is much truer to it than are his teachers. He sees that if it be a d«y to sacrifice" yourself for a b™ther-not b^ c use of the good it will do you but because of the good It will do him-,hen there is nothing m an aitificial national boundaiy to .»l.eve you fn>m that duty. ManisasJuch •35 Im THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM your brother— under the teaching of Altruism —if he be French or Russian or Spanish or Filipino, as if he live on the next street to you; and, consequently, if you must agitate m order to get certain "rights" for your brother in a near-by slum, you must not go to war in order to take these same "rights" away Tom your brother in a distant or hostile country. This is logical Altruism, and the democratic leader is seldom afraid to follow logic, no matter how many popular lions bar the path. Bnt nc will generally find that when he sets out on this road of logic, the men who taught him his Altruistic nonsense will turn back when the crowd do; and he will go on alone to die— politically, at all events- for his "brother Boer." His Altruistic co- workers, in the meantime, m^y go out as chaplains with the Imperialistic force. What the democratic leader needs is to sweep his mind free from sentiment and examine it frankly for a few moments. Does he "sacrifice" himself for his fellow man? Would he prefer, all things being considered, to take any other course? Would he be 136 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIi»JJSM happier in retirement or wearing the livery of "privilege?" Let him be honest with himself; and he will find that he is but satis- fying an inner appetite born of an extreme ■ense of brotherhood. He is doing the thing that he would prefer to do. He is an Egoist-- a product of the most highly developed modem Egoism— a man who labors for his fellows, not under cold compulsion but for the pure love of it. And if this be not a more desirable person— the man who takes pleasure m domg good-than the pet child of Altruism, to whom, it is a "sacrifice'^ to do good. I am no judge of the popular taste in such things. I had rather myself any day have a gift from a man who wanted to give it— from a "cheer- ful g^- -than from a man who would really like to keep it for himself. Then the moment the democratic leader beconies consciously an Egoist, he escapes one of the bitterest pains of his career-that of havmg to distrust the people on certain regular occasions. Usually, trust of the people IS a fundamental principle with him. He believes m government by the whole people- 's; « s THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM not by a few people. In other words, he is a democrat. He knows that the people may make mistakes through insufficient informa- tion; but he is confident, that when the facts have been well put before them, they will decide rightly. To this rule, he hardly knows an exception— until the trumpet of Imperial- ism sounds. Then, every time and in spite of the fullest information, and in face of all the efforts of fnmself and his fellow workers in the past, the people go "wrong." But they only go "wrong," if Altruism is a true principle, and patriotism is a revival of bar- barism. If, on the other hand. Egoism is the true principle, then patriotism becomes a virtue and the people are to be trusted in war as in peace. The great pity of this destruction of the influence of the democratic leader by his suicidal belief in Altruism, is, of course, the narrow limits it puts to his usefulness as a social reformer. But another evil effect more in touch with our subject is that it deprives Imperialism of its best and most intelligent supporter. The man who labors 138 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM to better the condition of the common people, » the man who does most to strengthen the nation. Nations are powerful just in proportion as the people are high in the scale of c,v,I,zat.on. The "condition of the people" question is the great international question. O*^ course, there are other forces which tell in the competition of the nations; but no force tels so mightily as the status of the great bulk of the people. To raise this stftus, the democratic leader labors; and whenever, during a long period of peace, he succeeds in securing a decided advance for his people, he has given the Imperialists their most potent arm when again they must take the held. Now if social reform and Imperialism could always go forward, hand-in-hand, the progress of the nation would be much greater. The leadership of the aristocrat is, of course better for Imperialism than the opposition of the democrat; but if the democrat were as enthusiasdc for Imperialism as the aristocrat, then his leadership would be coupled with a constant betterment of the condition of the 139 THE ETHICS OF IMPEBIAUBM people— or, in other words, of the strength of the nation— while the leadership of the aristocrat is always paid for out of the strength of the nation by the continuance of "pnyi- leges"—** privileges" which mean a denial of equal rights to the rest of the people. Under such circumstances, the democrat would be by far the most effective Imperialist; and, under his guidance, there would be no fear that the nation might rush into war— as France did in 1870— on the desperate chance of protecting "privilege" and not for the legitimate purpose of strengtiienmg its own position. 140 It t; iO IS :e le n XIII. IMPERIALISM AND ULTIMATE PEACE But, the sodal reformer says, is not peace a good thing? Should I not labor to bring about peace? And, moreover, are there no pnnciples which I must follow over the mtemational boundary? Is it really im- possible that my countiy may be on the wrong side m a war ? Undoubtedly assured peace would be one of the greatest blessings to which mankind oould attain. How it is to be reached we have already considered. Just as the indivi- dual had to be genuinely convinced that certain of his interests would be safer in the care of the state than in his own care, so the nation must find an international court in which It will similarly trust, before the possi- bihty of war can disappear. That is to say, universal peace cannot be arbitrarily decreed by a majority vote at a day's notice; but it HI THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM must come as the usual and inevitable result of favoring antecedent conditions. We pro- gress, socially as well as physically, by evo- lution; not by fiat. Now what the social reformer must do is to labor to bring about the conditions which will compel peace. This is quite a different thing from attempting to stampede the world into peace by pretending that these conditions already prevail. There is nothing to be gained by out-running the truth— by saying "peace, peace, when there is no peace." Just to the extent that we build up a powerful international authority, to that extent shall we have peace; and just to the extent that we convince the nations that their interests will be better protected by such an authority, shall we succeed in building it up. And that is the point to keep in mind— i.e., the interests of the nation. When the social reformer thinks to bring about peace by decrying national feeling and declaring patriotism to be obsolete, he is "putting the cart before the horse." He is tiing a step equivalent to asking the indivi- 142 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM dual to stop protecting himself before family cooperation had begun. His pohcy would make a hiatus between national self-preser- vatmn and the self-preservation of a united civilization. Now the race has not evolved to Its present position by this method at all. The mdividual kept right on protecting him- self until family co-operation was in full swing and took from him every o^oportunity-within the scope of its influence-to protect himself. He did not stop protecting himself that the family might be formed. If he had, the chances are that he would have disappeared and the family would never-on his initiative -have been formed. What he did was to protect himself unceasingly while the family shelter was being built up around him; and It was only when that shelter effectively guarded him on any side that his active vigilance on that side was held in abeyance. And that has been his practice down to the present moment. Man always protects him- self on every side where he is liable to attack- and he stands ready to protect himself again on any side long secure from attack if the 143 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM attack be renewed. It is never that he stops protecting himself; it is always that the attacks cease. So it is with the nation. It must be ready to protect itself as long as there is the slightest danger of attack. And when we say " protect itself," we mean protect its interests— protect every possession and privilege which helps the individuals who make up the nation to survive. When the time comes that these interests are in no danger of attack, the readiness to protect will naturally wither for lack of use. But it will certainly outlast its usefulness; for it will not commence to decay until the outside protection is complete, and the decay of an instinct is a slow process. As for international co-operation, which is to bring about this outside protection, that, too, will be the work of self-interest. We have already discussed some instances of it, such as the understanding between Britain and the United States. Both of these nations are more secure because of co-operation. If they were not, all the fine speeches in the world would not make them co-operate. 144 THE ETHICS OP IMPEBIAUSM very mu,-h 1. ■ 1- ■ '" ««>nipHshing labor and the men who buy and sell are The wrafford ogive uptheright of aggression upon afford the nsk of trade disturbance and the cost of competitive fleets and armies whch the poss.b.h.y of war implies. Here itts comes clear enough what the social reformer en do for peace He can increase the powe of the people; he can educate the busy and the unthmking in the advantages ofl«"- national coK,peration; he can compel the advocates of every war to p™ve that^t wal advantageous to the nation as a whole. Bui THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM he can do none of these things if he first kills his influence with the people by asking them to stop protecting themselves before the necessity for protection has disappeared. Patriotism is the instinct of national protection and to attempt to dull its sensations or to slacken its action while national protection is still a requirement of international con- ditions, is a step akin to destroying the heanng of a wild animal who is in danger of bemg stalked by an enemy. As to the existence of principles which cross the national boundaries, and which must effect the social reformer's judgment ot inter-national relationships, including war, there is only one question to be answered- viz — Arethey of greater importance than the first law of nature?" Are they not, as a matter of fact, only subsidiary developments of that law ? Is not every principle for which the social reformer stands intended to increase the chances of the individual to survive and be happy ? This is surely the reason why he advocates liberty, for instance; or a broader franchise, or freedom of trade. And these 146 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM prmcaples may be labored for without refer- ence .o international boundaries in all cal BuMvhen the root question of national sut vival comes up, the interests of the branch questions which live only throl fhet connection with it ^^^ l ji . " rebellion aga^* it ' "" '"'"^ J""""^ ' It is again a case of pushing your DrincinU. to the.r extreme limits You havr?„ I "^ hand tH .n.ipleofsurv-;'::.:^;^^^^^^ are intended to assist survival. The first pnncpl^tha. of survival-is precbdv ,h. same as it was when it govemed *"«,*! tte w^d'^?""' ""f "S ="<- '^^» he vr; "ack^d 't:t' ™"" "''*«™' cultiir, l" • ,. ''^^' •'•* ""■» of highest avihzation, is doing precisely the same thine He IS protecting himself wherever he t attacked; or else he is dyine Th, T l r« ^'-y» «op before pXtil^V: J physical force is not yet obsolete. The '47 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM nations must stand ready to fight for their interests or they will lose them. Thus war is still a method of securing survival; and to ask that the right of war should be foregone at a time when its exercise would make for survival, on th ground that the prosecution of it will be damaging to certain principles which are— at best— only expected to assist in making for survival, is to ask that the end be sacrificed to the means. But— to come to the last question— cannot one's own nation be in the wrong ? It is eas;, to think that it can if we permit our minds to be confused by the pretended "causes" of war with which a highly organized civilization loves to salve its conscience. Obviously, if your nation goes to war for some noble "cause"— say, to free the slaves— the oppos- ing nation which makes all this blood-shed necessary by resisting the benevolence of your nation, must be in the wrong, and if you had had the misfortune to be bom a citzen of that nation, you would have had to admit that your own nation was in the wrong. But whenwe look the facts squarely in thefaceand 148 THE ETHICS OP mPERIAUSM perc.iv.,ha.the real "cause" of war is always "mple a ,h.ng ,o decide that one's own or„"arr'"'""'T"«- ^"^-o"" nth T """.?' '" "" """g unless « js so bad generally as a national or- gan.zat.on as to deserve to have k, chances of survival curtailed. If it ijl^ enough » live, it is right for it to'^ live. Before a cozen of a n,tion can say of ZrZlT ,:'" V ""Sh. .o die. he Int Iwk well ,„ o the chances of the future and be thoroughly satisfied that the people com- d^r td ""'""r"' '^ "-"Off after "s death, and ,nto the chances of the future he must .eckon the possibility of fore,"^ don«nat.o„. the entire loss of its outld^ markets, the collapse of the national ambi '^„s «nv ng» f he never-dying passion of , P»ple to be free. He must no, imagine an «ges of a change to that; he must look a, '49 !; \ -is: J il'i Mi THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM things as they are and consider to what state the overthrow of his nation in war would probably lead. There is all the difference in the world between an internal revolution, such as England has had at least twice and France oftener, when a people changes its own form of government, and a defeat by an outside nation. So long as it is better for his people that they shall survive as an indepen- dent nation, the citizen is bound to support them in all wars which genuinely make for survival; and it is only possible for him to oppose a war on the ground that it will not make for survival. When he is persuaded that it would be better for his nation not to survive, then he should not await the coming of war to renounce his citizenship; but should voluntarily and promptly cast in his weight with some other nation whose survival he c?n support, and which he would rather see ruling his native country than have it permitted to rule itself. Thus the circle completes itself. It is the first business oi nan to survive. He fights at every point for survival until co-operation 150 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM relieves him of this necessity at certain points oy giving him more" survival" for less "fight" than he could get for himself Now co- operation has not yet abolished international war. Consequently man must stand ready t-» fight at this point until co-operation does reheve him of the necessity. CoK)peration must arrive first. It always has, and it always will. There must be no deadly opening m the armor between the nation's power of self-preservation and civilization's power to preserve it. Just as fast as the nations learn to coK)perate, they will prepare for the shrinkage of war preparations between themselves. Thus the social reformer should work for co-operation and not against pa- tnotism. He should be construcdve, not destructive. It may look at times as if patriotism barred the path to international co-opera:ion; but the truth is that patriotism IS the present form of the only principle which will ever make international co-operation possible-viz: enlightened self-preservation, lo attack patriotism is to attack the very force which is to bring about international 151 m tt THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM co-operation and universal peace. To attack patriotism is to array self-interest — as it is now expressed — against the cause which hope? to prosper by such an attack; and yet this cause is only a higher expression o^ self- interest. The proper course is to build this higher self-interest on tht foims of self- interest which now prevail, showing always that it grows out of them and never alarming even the most unthinking with the fear that it is mec- .t to destroy them. We shall get univerral peace, just as we got domestic peace ^!}:' -ivil peace — ^that is, by the slow conviction of che vast majority that their interests would be best protected if they combined their force to compel peace — never by asking them to throw away their force so that they could not, if they wanted to, break the peace. 152 XIV. THE PATRIOTIC INSTINCT We have referred to patriotism as the instinct of national protection, or national •eIf.presemt,on; and as there are schools of thought which look upon militant or Imperial patriotism as an evil force, it may be well to give some consideration to this phase of the question. It is charged against patriorism, for instance, that it is blind-that .t does not dearly distinguish wrong from right when it sets out upon a crusade-that, as Spencer said of Carlyle, it "thinks in a passion." This is however, but another way of saying that it is an mstina, and not always a new and original act of the individual judgment. That is to say, a man does not sit down calmly when a threat is made against his country and after considenng the matter for some time hit upon the novel but well-reasoned idea that it would be better for him to do something toward defending his native land. The wisdom of '53 I THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM such a course was reasoned out so long ago and has been established by such an endless chain of human experiences and has received so emphatically the decisive indorsement of evolution that action in accordance with it has become what we call an instinct. At the first shadow of an offence against even the lightest symbol of his country, the man's spirit is up in arms, and he is literally prepared to fight for the defence of the nation first — if necessary — and enquire into the causes of the trouble afterward. In this sense, patriotism is, indeed, blind, and patriots do "think in a passion." But this is the common characteristic of all instincts. A mother will always rash to the defence of her child without waiting to learn the cause of the quarrel. Our pity goes out to a wounded man on the instant, although we are perfectly aware that we may learn afterward that he richly deserved his wounds. Instincts are automatic mental processes which are always set in motion by certain causative circumstances, and whose prompt- ness and certainty have very much to do with 154 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM their value in the list of forces which make for sunival. Consequently patriotism is aroused automatically by every opponunity to come to the help of one's countiy. Judgment may be exercised with regard to the opportu- nity; but where the opportunity takes the torm of an assault upon the nation, the patriotic instinct has already pre-judged all such cases-^hat is, resistance to attack is a fixed part of the instinct. The only scope which the mstinct roily leaves to the judg- ment, m the militant field, is as o the wisdom ot attacking another nation for the benefit of one s own. Aggressive patriotism-that is, the patri- otism which attacks another nation-must get Its cue" from the judgment. Imperial - II THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM friends of popular liberty, and they have been rteadily accompanied by an improvement in the condition of the people. The French Revolution was an immense step forward in the popular liberties of the French people; and the material conditions of the French people advanced with the same stride. The happiness of the people of Europe to-day agr.es almost exaaly with the measure of liberty they enjoy. The discovery of America opened a new door of opportunity, relaxed the hold which the tyrannical land-owners of Europe held upon their peasantry, and thus brought an access of liberty even to those who did not cross the Atlantic; and it was followed by a wave of prosperity and bettered conditions wherever its influence was felt. In America, with its boundless wealth of free bnd, great liberty was enjoyed; and one of the finest communities which history has ever seen, grew up as a result. The people of the United States a generation ago, like the people of Canada to-day, were world models m sobriety, intelligence, mental acuteness, and a high average of industrial capacity. No 172 THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM one will pretend that the general level is a, high m the United States now, even if recent immigrants be excluded from the comparison. And yet what change has come, except that the hberty which free land guarantees has disappeared, and millioned monoplies have ansen which deny equal liberties to other American citizens ? Now what is the relation of the Egoistic and Altruistic philosophies to this conflict? 1 he Egoist, with his respect for the individual and his instinctive belief in liberty, is not to be drawn mto the "restrictionist" camp He IS not ndden by that cruel and most futile folly of the philanthropist-Paternalism. He is not moved by a desire to do good to others in ways by which he would fiercely resent having good done to him. In a word, he never thinks of coercing others for their good. The Altruist on the other hand, is a persistent Paternalist. He looks upon himself as a sort of deputy "father" of as much of the human race as he can reach. He is quite ready to look upon those who disagree with him as erring children," and to bring them under 173 i THE ETHICS OF IMPERIALISM school discipline. He naturally takes his plawt in the ineffective wing of "restrictionist" reformers, and easily becomes— in moments of emotional exaltation— the sincere and pitiless Persecutor. The scope of liberty is everywhere and at all times the reliable indicator of human progress. Any absolute or net diminution of liberty is a backward step. Every tyranny is a curse. Yet every tyranny has had its birth in some voluntary mutual measure to secure an increase of liberty. Thus, early communities came to have chiefs because the communities which fought under the commands of their test soldier were more likely to win and hence to secure wider and surer liberty. They would never at the first have tolr: ted chiefs if this were not true. If chiefs h? 1 been an evil, they would have combined against them as against any other evil. But the chief did, on occasion, develop into the tiyant. Sometimes it was even better to endure his tyranny than to attempt to get along without his leadership; and thus tyranny came in many cases to be tolerated. Then 174 THE ETHICS OF IMPERIAUSM granny could be mi,iga,ed by rcolution and gallons. Finally, however, day, of Kcuritv aro«, and tyrannical leadership became Z ab«,lu,e or net diminution of liberty. Then « was a curse; and eveo^^here people strove- and are stnvmg-to throw it off. This is typical. MUiurism may be at one «age a protector of liberty, and, at .m>ther «tage an enemy. Religi„„. „h,„ ^ ^^ «n«ly naaonal, strengthened the arm of the nation; now that it has become cosmopolitan « IS doubtful if it has that effect. A„a«^ cratjc central government fights for Hbe.^ ■n tmie of war, and against it in rime of pea« TJ.se things must be judged by the conditions **^h prevail in the world where they must «!«. There is no absolutely right form of e.vemmen.. Forms of government must be made to fit the needs of the hour. The Republic of Rome called for a Dictator in ."he" HK ^ ■""> r V" ^'««" P««"ed the liberties of the Republic. The English Commonwealth flourished under the Dictitor- »75 THE ETHICS OF IMPEKIALISM •hip of Cromwell and periahed at hit death. Yet when Dictatorship is not needed, it becomes a foe to liberty and hence a ciine. Liberty is the certain test. Does it make for liberty or against it?— that decides the worth of every human device. The only demand that dxt State— i.e., the majority of the individuals— can rightfully make upon the minority to forego liberty is in order that greater liberty be the result. Thus we curtail the liberty of a man to keep fowls in a business district in order that the Kberty of others to enjoy health and good air may not be unduly limited. And this test must always be applied. When the liberty of the many is curtailed in order that k few may enjoy a "privilege," there is an absolute or net reduction of liberty which is a step backward. The only foe to liberty among the so-called ethical forces is Altruism. It alone will venture to curtail liberty in order that good may result. Egoism, on the other hand, makes war upon every restriction to liberty the moment it perceives clearly that it is a restriction and not a proteaion. And it 176 If m »th. > it dee the nly rity >on hat tail ess to Illy be is oy let •d. ed Ul >d d, is it THE ETHICS OP IMPERIALISM doe. ,hi. for EipWc „.»„,, the Egoism of the man always knowing that it wiU fuZ mo« than it win gain fr„m's„ch:,:^:.t J'll sometimes tight for liberty where the evil done to other, by it, absence i, «ry 1;; bu, even m .uch case. Altruism is veX Hkelv » want to accompany it, gift of libel ^th Ihe pomt .,. however, that Altruism i, the onJy force which for "moral" rea«,„. iZ dSd '*"'•; "^ ^«»'- ■»«••*'' Finis