A Society of Survival, or Sacrifice? Examining Two Dominant Ontologies in the West
After observing various debates (cultural, political, philosophical), I have concluded that two governing ontologies are in conflict within Western society. Ontology – the nature of reality – grounds how people reason (epistemology) and behave (sociology). In the West, two competing ontologies dominate: survival and sacrifice. Before getting into the distinctions, recognition should be given to what these views share. Both ontologies would recognize the importance of benevolent societies for human flourishing. The common person in the West would agree that such a society is what we are all fighting for. Although both affirm benevolent societies, the difference lies in disagreement on why benevolence matters and what obligates it.
The Ontologies of Survival and Sacrifice
The survivalist ontology is what primarily governs secularist thinking, which excludes the divine and grounds human flourishing in individual and collective survival. The survivalist would recognize the importance of benevolent societies because they are necessary for the survival of the individual. Therefore, this person will often act in accordance with the good of society as they understand “good,” but the underlying motive is fundamentally subjective. In sum, the secular survivalist would argue that society should be benevolent because of the preference and desire for survival. This framework is undergirded by an amoral sense of selfishness.
In conflict is the sacrificialist ontology, which is characterized by Christianity in the West. Christianity has an objective ontology that the divine/God exists, and human beings are made in His image. Therefore, humans exist for the glory of God, which Scripture makes clear is expressed in acting for the good of fellow man (the Ten Commandments; cf. Mark 12:28-34; 1John 3:10-18). God Himself is benevolent, which is most clearly expressed in Creation (Genesis 1) and the giving of His Son for our salvation (John 3:16), and He requires humanity to be benevolent as well (ex. The Parable of the Good Samaritan). Christians act for the good of society because God expects them to lay down their lives for others if necessary – their families, each other, their unbelieving neighbors, and even their enemies. In sum, the Christian sacrificialist would argue that society ought to be benevolent because doing good to others is necessary for the glory of God. A moral duty of selflessness undergirds this framework.
Again, if both sides agree on the need for benevolent societies, what is the big deal? First, the understanding of each view reveals that one advocates for benevolence from a motive of (amoral) selfishness as opposed to (moral) sacrifice. Likewise, one relies on subjective preference and desire for survival, while the other is built on objective duty and responsibility from God. The difference in these perspectives is not insignificant. Second, in the sum of each view, notice an important distinction made: the survivalist ontology can only assert that people should be benevolent out of the desire to survive, while the sacrificialist ontology asserts that people ought to be benevolent because of divine expectation.
If this distinction feels like semantics, then we should remember that semantics matter. In our current society, the difference in semantics may seem insignificant because, despite all our conflicts, the West still enjoys a great deal of privilege, ease, and prosperity. This enjoyment is largely due to the Christian influence that has dominated the West for almost two millennia. The result is that the survivalist can feel secure in their ontology because the foundationally Christian West allows them to conflict with the sacrificialists and still enjoy privilege, ease, and prosperity. The comforts of the Christian West allow the individual survivalist to think their worldview is not harmful, and even a worthy substitute to the Christian sacrificialist ontology.
The Contrasting Results of these Ontologies
Let’s put these ontologies into an actual survival, or apocalyptic, situation. The survivalist ontology provides no objective grounding for what people ought to do in such cases. In an apocalyptic situation, no one wants to find themselves in a society of survivalists, because a consistent survivalist is going to think and act selfishly, because what should do in society is outweighed by what I need to survive. Even in the comforts of the Christian West, this mentality is observable in some secularists who are more than happy to destroy the established fabric of reality and the foundation of their own society for what amounts to their own personal gain. To survive (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc.), they will destroy their own families, friendships, and even nations to get what they feel they need. The recent public assassination of Charlie Kirk and subsequent praise is evidence of this survivalist destruction.
On the other hand, in this apocalyptic scenario, a consistent sacrificialist Christian would recognize that even in dire circumstances, they still have a moral duty from God to be selfless. A failure to do so incurs consequences, if not in this life, then certainly in the next. Therefore, even a nominal Christian experiences the pressure not to be selfish or tyrannical due to the expectation of divine consequences. The sacrificialist ontology is demonstrated today in an all-too-common, sad situation: Christian parents are willing to sacrifice something they see as essential to their being – their faith – to maintain a relationship with a child who has often rebelled and fallen prey to the ideas that govern the survivalist ontology. Although this reasoning and behavior are mistaken about what is “good,” the sacrifice still reflects the Christian ontology that governs their conscience.
Putting both ontologies into a societal structure, the practical results would only be magnified. Even if a survivalist society promoted benevolence and the people enjoyed ease, comfort, and prosperity, this benevolence is dependent on the selfishness of the strong and powerful being subdued from a sense of what they should do, but not what they must do. But when the underlying selfishness is not subdued, the result is various extents of tyranny. The fact that secular survivalist thinking and action are often expressed in fear of tyranny proves to be merely a projection of their own worldview. Secular anxiety is deeply rooted in the fear that its ontology produces.
However, in a sacrificialist Christian society, benevolence derives from the expectation that the people have a duty to be selfless and do good to others. If someone rebels against this expectation and becomes a selfish tyrant, then the people have a moral duty to oppose such tyranny with appropriate means (as understood Biblically, not by secularists). Even if a tyrant cannot be overthrown, the people remain secure under the reality and expectation of divine judgment and that such tyranny does not always last (cf. 1 Peter 1:6-9,4:12-19). This understanding is why mature Christians are not indifferent but remain confident and secure even in troubling times.
Concluding Thoughts
The question for readers, then, is which ontology do you want society to be founded on? Which reality do you want governing people’s epistemology (thinking) and sociology (behavior)? Which framework do you want governing the laws and authority of the nation? What secular survivalists must recognize is that they implicitly depend on the Christian sacrificialist foundations.
Remove Christianity, and the moral restraints preventing unbridled tyranny collapse.
