Humanitarianism Found Wanting

Crumbling Mortar

The tide of migrants pushing their way into Europe and demanding welcome, provision, support and acceptance has European nations reeling.  Europe resembles the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.  Every policy position, every action and reaction faces a storm of criticism amongst the elites, on the one hand, and the public, on the other.

Why the confusion?  Why the paralysis?  Germany has become the poster-boy for the Western response. Led by Angela Merkel, it has championed the philosophy of humanitarianism.  She has spoken of "European values", by which she means humanitarianism, and the greatest moral obligation which Germany has ever faced.  She has sought to lead the country in responding with unconditional charity towards those who alight upon European shores.  Even more, she had demanded that other European nations "do their bit" and follow German commitment.

Meanwhile, the public grows uneasy as they hear stories of violence, muggings, rapes, beatings, and extortion amongst the immigrants.  They hear the arrogant demands.  The insistence that countries like Germany must provide for them.  The public grows uneasy at the "foreignness" of the migrants.

Ironically, if you fronted up to Germany's borders and demanded we be allowed to immigrate because our standard of living was sub-par and Germany's was much better we would be quickly shown the door.
  But why?  Why a different standard when it comes to hordes of people migrating from North Africa and the Hindu Kush?

As always, the answers are complex.  But one aspect clearly found wanting is the European (or Western) philosophy of humanitarianism.  It is the quasi-religious notion of humanitarianism that has led Europe into its confused, double standards when it comes to the migrant hordes.

Humanitarianism treats man in the abstract.  Humanity (however defined) is the ultimate value.  Humanitarianism is an elitist philosophy which views a human being in isolation, and not in terms of his values, beliefs, culture, habits, commitments, or beliefs.  Humanitarianism produces abstract notions of human rights.  Humanitarianism can function so as to preserve a society only when that society is mono-cultural.  But immediately large numbers of people--large enough to maintain their own very foreign cultural beliefs and practices--push their way into the country, humanitarianism collapses.  For, overnight, society is confronted with a different kind of human being--a non-European human being, with fiercely held foreign beliefs, practices, and habits.

Humanitarianism at that point becomes an abstraction which cannot cope with man-in-reality.  Should the humanitarian society welcome the prevailing pederasty and child brides?  Should it accept the polygamy?  Should it accept the oppressive patriarchy of Islamic society?  Should it accept sharia law?  It has no choice but to accept all of these because the people living and acting in such foreign ways are clearly human beings, and it is their humanness which is the ultimate organising principle and value according to humanitarianism. And humanness (according to humanitarian ideology) is the ultimate social entity and philosophical value.  Western values hang their head and shuffle sideways.  It can only consider man-in-abstract, and has nothing to say to the man-in-concrete.

Is pederasty right or wrong?  Is polygamy right or wrong?  Humanitarianism must remain decidedly neutral on these subjects, since it has no overarching moral system obligating all humans.  

The Christian position is very different.  In Christian doctrine, Man is not the ultimate reality in the cosmos, let alone in human society.  Man is a creature, and is covenantally bound and obligated firstly to God the Creator of all things, and secondly to other human beings.  But the covenant bonds and related obligations are never abstractions.  They always exist in culture and practice.  Such cultures--in this fallen world--consist of both good and ignoble, immoral and evil aspects.  Consequently, Christian doctrine has a high view of man--not as a valueless abstraction, but as made in God's image--and a high demand for loyalty to God's law.  Those men who break God's law (murder, theft, cheating, lying, stealing, rape, kidnapping, etc) become out-laws--that is, cast out of ordinary society, their humanness notwithstanding.

Humanitarianism has none of this.  It cannot address man in his societal and covenantal obligations.  It has no such obligations or moral beliefs or codes of practice.  For humanitarianism can only view man in the abstract.  And Man is the ultimate value. Thus, when humans muscle their way across borders, demanding tolerance and acceptance and aid humanitarianism stumbles about in doubt, uncertainty, and confusion.

Humanitarianism is crumbling.  We always knew it would.  Celebrating Man in the abstract, it has no framework or basis to deal with man in the particular.  Humanitarianism has had the luxury of drawing upon a Christian past which has created a moral consensus that certain behaviours are moral, others immoral.  It has viewed these ethical standards as self-evident, as human constructs, and therefore an expression of humanitarianism.  Until it faces a mass of people who have very different moral and cultural loyalties.  And then humanitarianism crumbles into doubt and confusion.

That's precisely what we see happening across Europe now.