“Granted, I should love my neighbor as myself, the questions which, under modern conditions of large-scale organization, remain for solution are, ''Who precisely is my neighbor?'' and ''How exactly am I to make my love for them effective in practice?''... It had insisted that all men were brethren. But it did not occur to it to point out that, as a result of the new economic imperialism, which was begging to develop in the 17th century, the brethren of the English merchant were the Africans whom he kidnapped for slavery in America, or the American Indians from whom he stripped of their lands, or the Indian craftsmen whom he bought muslin's and silks at starvation prices. Religion had not yet learned to console itself for the practical difficulty of applying its moral principles by clasping the comfortable formula that for the transaction of economic life no moral principles exist.”
Quote Analysis
In this quote by R. H. Tawney, the author delves into the complexity of applying moral principles in a modern society characterized by large-scale organization and economic imperialism. Tawney questions the idea of loving one's neighbor as oneself, highlighting the challenges in defining who exactly constitutes as a neighbor and how to effectively show love towards them in practice.
Tawney criticizes religion for failing to acknowledge the harsh realities of economic exploitation and the contradictions between moral principles and economic transactions. He argues that the economic imperialism of the 17th century led to the exploitation of various groups, such as Africans enslaved in America, Native Americans dispossessed of their lands, and Indian craftsmen paid starvation wages for their goods.
Through this quote, Tawney emphasizes the disconnect between religious or moral teachings and the harsh economic realities of the time, suggesting that in the realm of economic transactions, moral principles often seem to be absent. This analysis sheds light on the moral dilemmas faced in navigating the complexities of economic relationships and the ethical implications of such interactions.
Modern Relevance
In this quote by R. H. Tawney, the challenges of loving our neighbors as ourselves in a modern, large-scale organizational context are highlighted. The idea of brotherhood and love for one another is examined in the context of economic imperialism and exploitation. The questions of who our neighbors are and how to effectively show love for them in practical terms are raised, prompting us to consider the implications of these principles in today's society.
Critique of Religion's Moral Principles in Economic Life
In this passage by R. H. Tawney, the author reflects on the limitations of religious moral principles in addressing the ethical challenges posed by economic imperialism. Tawney highlights the disconnect between the universal call to love one's neighbor and the exploitation and oppression perpetuated by the economic activities of the time. The examples provided underscore the urgent need for a more nuanced understanding of ethical responsibilities in the context of economic relationships.
Reflection Questions
In this thought-provoking quote by R. H. Tawney, he raises important questions about the application of moral principles in the face of economic imperialism and exploitation. Reflecting on these questions can help us examine our own beliefs and actions in relation to our neighbors and the marginalized in society. Here are some questions to consider:
Who do you consider to be your neighbor in today's interconnected world? How do issues of globalization and economic disparities affect this definition?
In what ways can you make your love for your neighbors more effective in practice, especially in the context of economic injustices and inequalities?
How can we reconcile our moral principles with the economic realities of our society, and what role does religion or spirituality play in guiding our actions towards social justice and equality?
Similar quotes
“[Neighbor is] not he whom I find in my path, but rather he in whose path I place myself, he whom I approach and actively seek.”
“For I wondered that others, subject to death, did live, since he whom I loved, as if he should never die, was dead; and I wondered yet more that myself, who was to him a second self, could live, he being dead. Well said one of his friend, "Thou half of my soul"; for I felt that my soul and his soul were "one soul in two bodies": and therefore was my life a horror to me, because I would not live halved. And therefore perchance I feared to die, lest he whom I had much loved should die wholly.”
“My father looked carelessly at the title page of my book, and said, "Ah! Cornelius Agrippa! My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash." If, instead of this remark, my father had taken the pains to explain to me, that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded, and that a modern system of science had been introduced, which possessed much greater powers than the ancient, because the powers of the latter were chimerical, while those of the former were real and practical; under such circumstances, I should certainly have thrown Agrippa aside, and, with my imagination warmed as it was, should probably have applied myself to the more rational theory of chemistry which has resulted from modern discoveries”
“To a Soviet person, used to the nationality policy of the USSR, all the mistakes of the American government's Indian policy are evident from the first glance. The mistakes are, of course, intentional. The fact of the matter is that in Indian schools, class is conducted exclusively in English. There is no written form of any Indian language at all. It's true that every Indian tribe has its own language, but this doesn't change anything. If there were any desire to do so, the many American specialists who have fallen in love with Indian culture could create Indian written languages in a short time. But imperialism remains imperialism.”
“...but most of all he liked to listen to stories of real life. He smiled gleefully as he listened to such stories, putting in words and asking questions, all aiming at bringing out clearly the moral beauty of the action of which he was told. Attachments, friendships, love, as Pierre understood them, Karataev had none, but he loved and lived on affectionate terms with every creature with whom he was thrown in life, and especially so with man- not with any particular man, but with the men that happened to be before his eyes.But his life, as he looked at it, had no meaning as a separate life. It only had meaning as part of a whole, of which he was at all times conscious.”