The third great principle laid down by Jesus for the conduct of life
is love: devotion to the welfare of others.
This principle had been enunciated by all of the great religious
teachers, but never before had it been so emphasized as by Jesus. The
Buddha had taught kindness and mercy, and among the Buddhists even
to-day it is not uncommon for people to make gifts to the community,
such as bridges or rest houses by the wayside, or public buildings,
in order "to acquire merit." Likewise Confucius and the Hebrew
lawgivers teach mercy and kindness and devotion to the welfare of the
community. Nowhere, however, in all literature have we quite the same
range of touching human sympathy as is expressed in the parable of
the Good Samaritan, or quite the same direct guide to human action as
in the Golden Rule. Most Christian teachers, indeed, have spoken of
this principle of love as the cardinal principle of Jesus' teachings,
often as if it were almost the sole principle of social import;
whereas, far-reaching as it is, the principle was not so new in
social science as that of individual responsibility.
The social value of this principle is most clearly demonstrated
by recognizing the fact that Jesus apparently made the welfare of
humanity the basis of his ethical teachings, his test of right and
wrong. And that is perhaps, on the whole, the best test that can be
applied to individual or social action to-day. Much has been said
by Christian teachers, and by the teachers of other religions, of
the Law of God; and the test of what is right and wrong has seemed
to be either some specific commands, such as, for example, the Ten
Commandments of the Hebraic law, or other pronouncement of priestly
doctrine; but Jesus, in his interpretation of the ancient law, sought
for a fundamental principle which was to be applied to individual
human action by the individual himself. In his declaration, "The
Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath," in his parable
of the Good Samaritan, in his condemnation of the Pharisees for their
hard-heartedness, in his enunciation, indeed, of the Golden Rule
itself, we find various ways in which the truth that whatever tends
to benefit humanity is right and whatever tends to injure humanity
is wrong is made the basis of judgment.
This principle of Jesus would generally, I believe, be accepted for
the basis of individual action. Of course, customs, habits, laws
have so passed judgment upon most of our every-day acts that we do
not need to stop to argue with ourselves the question as to whether
stealing or killing other human beings or bearing false witness are
for the benefit of humanity or for its detriment. We know it, we
feel it; custom has made it instinctive; and yet our laws make very
clear the distinction between murder and the execution of the death
sentence or killing in self-defense; and the basis of the distinction
is, of course, the welfare of the community.
Many writers, however, especially perhaps some of the leading German
jurists, have drawn a sharp distinction between personal ethics and
governmental ethics, arguing that though it may be wrong for an
individual to lie, it is entirely proper for a government to deceive,
if by so doing its own immediate welfare can be promoted. Along the
same line is argued the justification for wars, seizure of territory
of weaker peoples, and other acts of government that throughout all
history have been assumed to be right, or passed over with little
condemnation.
On this point again there can be no question that this broad
principle, the promotion of the welfare of humanity at large, comes
the nearest of any test of right and wrong that has been, probably
that can be, discovered. This makes no distinction between underlying
principles of governmental ethics, personal ethics, international
ethics. The differences, whatever they may be, lie in the different
influences that are brought to bear by the acts of an individual in
his private and in his governmental capacities. It is, however, not
difficult ordinarily to make the distinction.
Whatever the varying conditions may have been that guided
governmental actions in the upward progress of civilization, the
best test, perhaps, of national morality and of a higher civilization
is that as time goes on the principles which should guide individual
action in a society shall more and more become the rules by which
governmental action within the society and also in international
relations shall be guided. The higher civilizations, in their
dealings with one another, and especially in their dealings with
weaker peoples, should base their actions more and more upon truth,
development of the individual through responsibility, the Golden Rule.