IS A REACTION AGAINST PHILANTHROPY POSSIBLE?
THERE can be no reasonable doubt of the immense 1 importance that the idea of philanthropy is attaining, not only in theology and in social arrangements, but even in hard politics and the management of the Exchequer. In many classes, and those the most actively interested in religious development, it would almost seem as if Christianity itself were melting down in a deliquescence of kindliness. The very word " well-being " has altered its significance. The ancient Christian idea of poverty being in itself a grace, tending at least to clean the soul of too much earthiness, has practically vanished from the Protestant Churches. The man who is charitable, or who joins heartily in the steady warfare now waging against poverty, is the man who is good,—that is for the moment the decision of modern opinion. He may sacrifice the nobler objects of life to a rushing chase of fortune, may even pursue business methods which have in them an appreciable taint of cruelty, but if he is "benevolent," in the sense of readiness to make large charitable gifts, the world condones his action, or even regards him with admiration. The protests from the Churches are rare and cautious, and even in extreme cases philanthropy is avowedly considered a set-off against self-seeking and recklessness about oppres- sion. This stream of feeling, which is acknowledged, and sometimes strongly defended, by teachers as well as students of Christianity, is deepened by that great stream of thought which is usually, perhaps unwisely, defined as "Socialism." and which is deflecting the action not only of all political philosophers, but of the Governments of great States. The practical basis of Socialism is no doubt the hunger for equality, but the moral basis is philan- thropy, as expressed in the constantly repeated declaration of war against poverty. Philanthropy ought to have a wider significance ; but for the moment its practical working meaning is that no one should be pained or crippled by the want of a certain quantity of money. No one, we think, will dispute these propositions, and the majority of publicists not only assume them to be perma- nently true, but believe that the volume of. their effects will swell and swell until the condition of mankind, at least in Western Europe and America, is visibly revolutionised. " Rich " and '• poor" may remain as descriptions of classes ; but all will be comfortable, and all, except a minute residuum of ne'er-do-weels or incom- petents, contented. The doubt we are about to suggest will therefore be received by a minority of our readers with dis- favour, and by the majority with a sense of surprise such as is experienced when any one propounds a too daring paradox. Nevertheless, the doubt exists in many minds—some of them the minds of persons of great practical experience—and crops up pretty frequently in threats—which are considered almost immoral—that wealthy people will meet the new demand for legal charity by shutting off the voluntary charities of which they have hitherto made a practice. Philanthropy, it is alleged, is being pushed too far, so far that there is some danger of its interfering both with civilisation and with certain elementary principles of justice,—for instance, that a man has a right to the "solitary and selfish" use of that which he himself creates. An actor's wages, for example, are his. No increase of wealth is possible if the whole surplus of what is produced by intellectual toil—and the government of associated labour is intellectual toil of an exhausting order—is to be paid away to those who want, and even the payment of a great portion may seriously diminish the energy both of giver and receiver, which in the aggregate is the force that keeps the world in the groove of material progress.
For this doubt there are at least some reasons of apparent validity. The argument which is constantly pleaded by all Socialists, and is accepted silently by the more despotic philanthropists, that no limit can be -fixed to the right of a community to deprive any class of its surplus beyond bare maintenance, is rejected not only by the selfish, but by many who think. It certainly was not a principle laid down by Christ, for He made of philanthropy a virtue, and involuntary virtues are unthinkable. They are not virtues unless the action they suggest is sanctioned by free will. The
Socialist does not particularly care about virtues—is apt, indeed, to be very indignant at "charity "—but even he is guilty of one defect in logic. The absolute right of the community may exist, though we do not think so, the community having, for example, no moral claim to establish slavery ; but the right to tax up to twenty shillings in the pound all surplus money can only exist on the condition that it is applied to the whole community alike, a reservation so patent that it is embodied in black and white in the Constitution of the 'United States. That application would, of course, be fatal to excessive direct taxation. The right of the community to take the whole surplus from every one may be perfectly clear—it would be admitted, for instance, in the case of famine or invasion—but special demands on a special class are precisely like special demands on an individual ; that is, unless justified by some plea like national safety, they may involve in reality pillage. Against such pillage those who are threatened feel that they have a right of self-defence, and the self-defence of those who are capable of guiding has very rarely in history been found futile. Since the foundation of history, indeed, the masses have had the power of strangling the classes with their bare hands, and have never yet found in themselves the force to constitute a permanent system of economic equality. Even the French were obliged to give up the effort as too great for human nature.
Without, however, entering into the endless question of ultimate possibilities, it is certain that those who possess, and who are subjected to ever new demands, will at some point or other consider themselves unjustly treated, and instinctive selfishness will unite itself with deliberate conviction in a strong, it may be an almost immovable, resistance. In the countries which are governed by reason rather than emotion the form of this resistance will probably be the gradual adoption by opinion of a fixed limit to the claim of "charity," whether perfectly voluntary or enforced by State penalties. What this limit should be or will be it M impossible to define, but there has always been a tendency in Christian society to fix it in a vague way at ten per cent.,—the " tithe ' to which the great Churches in the early days of their organisation always pleaded a moral, if not also a legal, right. In other words, resistance to the absolute claim of philanthropy will begin when men find that their voluntary charities and legal charities taken together absorb a tenth of their earn- ings. The proportion may differ in every country, for in every country surplus has a different meaning ; but that a fixed proportion will settle itself in the national mind we have little doubt, and when it has settled itself the necessary force to defend the conviction is almost certain to accrete to those who possess, and whose resisting- power is at present paralysed, or at least weakened, by the internal conviction of the conscience that the claim of the " Have-nots " must in the last resort be founded on the responsibility of every man to his Maker for his treatment of his neighbour. This is acknowledged in every Christian country as regards the security of life from hunger, but the stiff question remaining is the extent to which this claim can justly be pressed. There must be a limit if civilisation is to survive, for without accumulation it can neither be founded nor maintained. The Socialist's answer that he can make a new civilisation, for that all force rests with the majority, if studied by the light of history, rests, we believe, on an illusion,— akin to one which should declare that a navy can conquer without an Admiral and without officers, a proposition to which the history of piracy gives a final reply. There never yet was a pirate fleet whose rules of internal discipline were not five times as severe as those of any armament kept up by a State. The desire of equality and the claim of abstract justice alike gave way before a necessity founded on laws obviously imposed by a higher Power ; and that once acknowledged, the "claim?' of the Socialist to divide the fruits of exertion equally disappears, and that of the philanthropist will be subjected by opinion to many and strong limitations. If the right of the com, munity to be happy is above all other rights, the right of the individual to exist depends on the question whether his happiness and the happiness of the community are con- sistent demands.
Previous page
