CONFESSIONS OF A RECOVERING ALTRUIST
by Robert M. Eddy, M. Div.
delivered at the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP OF the EMERALD COAST Valparaiso, Florida
11 November 2001

The title of this discourse has undergone a number of changes over the last fifteen years. An earlier version was titled "The Aspiration to Tranquility Verses The Temptation to Holiness." A more descriptive version was titled,
"Jesus' ethic verses The ethic of Epicurus." The original title was "The golden Rule is Brass." I kept searching for a better title because I did not believe, and I do not want to even suggest. that folks who try to follow the teachings of Jesus are in any way inferior to myself. However, their way is not the only way to be ethical and it is no longer my way. I want to explain this morning why I have given up not only the cosmology and epistemology of Jesus but his ethic as well: the ethic which I'm here calling Altruism.
I lost my faith in Altruism, on a week long backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon. I had brought along for rereading a philosophical tome published in 1950 by the late Isaac Asimov, Ph.D., The title: I Robot. It's really a collection of short Science fiction stories. The heroine of most of the stories is Dr. Susan Calvin, a human who acts as a sort of clinical psychologist for "positronic" robots.
In one of the stories a politician named Quinn accuses his opponent, Buyerly of being a robot. Buyerly is handsome, forthright, intelligent, talented and compassionate; obviously too good to be human much less a politician. Dr. Calvin, the human expert on Robot Psychology is brought in to help determine whether Buyerly is flesh and blood or a robot? Dr. Calvin tells Mr. Quinn, "There are only two ways of definitely proving that Buyerly is a robot:...the physical and the psychological. Physically, you can dissect him or use X-rays. Psychologically, his behavior can be studied...[I]f he is a ...robot, he must conform to the three laws of robotics. A positronic brain cannot be constructed without them.
(The first law of Robotics is)
A ROBOT MAY NOT INJURE A HUMAN BEING OR THROUGH INACTION ALLOW A HUMAN BEING TO COME TO HARM.
[The Second law of Robotics is]
A ROBOT MUST OBEY THE ORDERS OF A HUMAN BEING EXCEPT WHERE SUCH ORDERS CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST LAW.
[The third law of Robotics is]
A ROBOT MUST PROTECT ITS OWN EXISTENCE AS LONG AS SUCH PROTECTION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST OR SECOND LAWS...If Mr. Buyerly breaks any of these three laws, he is not a robot. Unfortunately, this procedure works in only one direction. If he lives up to the [three laws] it proves nothing ." Quinn raised polite eyebrows. "Why not doctor?" "Because if you stop to think of it, the three laws of robotics are the essential guiding principles of a good many of the world's ethical systems... [for example] every human being is supposed to have the instinct of self preservation. That's rule three to a robot. ... every good human being ... is supposed to defer to proper authority ... to obey laws, to follow rules, to conform to custom, even when they interfere with his comfort or safety.
That's rule two of the robot. [and] every truly 'good' human being is supposed to love others as himself, to protect his fellow man, to risk life to save another. That's rule one to a robot. To put it simply, if Buyerly follows all the rules of Robotics, he may be a robot or he may simply be a very good man."
It seems to me Dr. Calvin left out one very important word. She should have said, "He may be a robot or he may simply be a very good CHRISTIAN man." Why? Because the ethics embodied in the three laws of Robotics are essentially the ethics taught by Jesus of Nazareth. Another word for the ethic of Jesus is Altruism which my American Heritage dictionary defines as follows:
Altruism: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. Another definition might be, "living for others."
For the first fifty years of my life, I tried to be an Altruist but while rereading Asimov's story on that backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon a question popped into my mind: "Is what I have considered a very good person simply somebody's idea of a perfect robot?"
The first law of robotics states "a robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. It is the second part of that law "or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm" that makes Asimov's robots Christians rather than Jews. Like Asimov's robots, true Christians, must not only refrain from injuring others but must also actively intervene to prevent others from coming to harm even to intervene to prevent them from harming themselves.
Jesus' taught, "do unto others that which you would have them do unto you." This teaching is different from what most other religious leaders have taught. Other so called "versions" of the golden rule are really, when you examine them closely, quite different from Jesus' teaching.
For example: The great Jewish scholar, Hillel, an older contemporary of Jesus, taught, "Do not unto others that which is hateful to thee." This is much closer to Buddhist and the Confucian teachings. Jesus' golden rule, altruism, not only prohibits one from harming another human being. Jesus' golden rule requires that one take action to prevent a human being from coming to harm. I call this "the temptation to holiness" and have come to believe that it is the source of many of the world's troubles. Hillel's rule requires only that one refrain from actions which would be harmful to another. They do not insist that one intervene for another persons "own good." .
WHY DID I ABANDON ALTRUISM?
For many reasons, only one of which I will address this morning: Jesus' ethic, does not address the diversity of human wants. George Bernard Shaw put it precisely: "Don't do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Your tastes may be different." For example, what does a masochist do with  the golden rule? Does he go about torturing others so that they may like the masochist feel pleasure by suffering? Shaw was being facetious, but "many a true word is said in jest." When I was a Methodist minister, I used to say, "Christianity hasn't failed, it's never been tried." Now I realize that the Jesus' ethic has been tried. Western civilization justified its behavior by Jesus' ethic - Altruism. The ethic of Jesus, combined with belief in a life after death and the conviction that belief in dogma determines one's fate in that afterlife, resulted in the practices identified with the Inquisition though in fairness I should point out that those practices were equally common where Calvinists, Lutherans and Anglicans held power. Calvin, Luther and the popes all reasoned that the only way one can be loving to a person destined for hell by heresy or disbelief is to make that person believe correctly. Torture and painful execution were designed to "save the soul" of the heretic from eternal suffering. It was done out of unselfish love. The Grand Inquisitor was a great altruist. Consider: if you knew that your beliefs would condemn you to hell forever, wouldn't you want someone to torture you into heaven? Altruism became the justification for the burning of heretics, the conquest of Asia, Africa and America by the Christian nations and the forceful and sometimes successful attempt to destroy native cultures "We did it for their own good. It was our Christian duty!"
" But", you protest, "that was centuries ago!" Not so! The Inquisition is long past. Imperialism, in its blatant form at least, is dead. But what of the actions of the United States in Vietnam We did not say, "We do this for our benefit." We said, "This is for your benefit." We did it for "Democracy" or for of "self-determination" or "to fight Communism." We did it for their own good. Many of us in this room remember when an American officer commented in Vietnam , "We had to burn the village to save it." For their own good." I could document the same fault with the proactive version of the "Golden Rule" with examples from medicine as practiced on women or from education practiced on children -- but not this morning. For many reasons, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus' ethic as expressed in the "Golden Rule", is a dangerous guide for either personal or group behavior. When required to prevent harm from coming to others, we often more harm than if we were indifferent or selfish. Now, let me be clear, I propose neither indifference nor selfishness. But you must wait for my first law of "human being" to hear my alternative.
The second law of robotics is: "A robot must obey the orders given it by a human being except where such orders would conflict with the first law." This too is a part of Jesus' ethic. Jesus left no doubt that his disciples should follow even outrageous orders. They lived in an occupied country where the law required a native to carry a Roman soldier's pack for a mile when so ordered. Jesus told his followers to carry the pack not just one, but two miles. He taught that if someone asks for your coat you should give him your shirt as well. This is passivism, p-a-s-s-i-v-i-s-m, non-resistance to evil. It is very different from the pacifism, p-a-c-i-f-i-s-m or nonviolent resistance to evil as recommended by Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Many Americans confuse the two and think that nonviolent resistance was devised by Jesus of Nazareth. It was not. Jesus did teach love of enemies as did Gandhi and King, but he also taught non resistance to evil. Nonresistance to evil makes robots of those who practice it.
The third law of robotics is:
"A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law." The important part of this law is its subordination to the first two. It boils down to this: "put yourself last". Despite attempts to alloy Jesus' teachings with the insights of modern Psychology, this teaching -- put yourself last -- is central to what he taught. The true Christian saint is one who, like Jesus, would be first by being last, leader by being servant.
The true follower of Jesus' ethic is one who would literally give up his life to save not only his friends, but even his enemies. It is an ethic for martyrs as Jesus' earliest followers realized. We, as products of a nominally Christian culture are so used to looking at Jesus' ethic as a desirable, even if impossible, ideal that we hardly examine what actually happens when people attempt to live by it. As Isaac Azimov subtly pointed out, the ethics of Jesus are ethics for robots.