From our modern point of view, the ancient Hebrew writers had a far
deeper knowledge of moral and religious questions than of natural
science. They had a far keener sense of what was socially
beneficial than of what was scientifically true. However we may
estimate their knowledge of geology and biology, we must grant that
their beliefs regarding the good and ill effects of human action
have in them much that is universally true, even though we may not
follow them throughout in their theories of divine wrath and
immediate earthly punishment of the wicked.
But is it not true almost invariably, if we look at social
questions of every kind in a comprehensive way, that the survival
of the fittest means the survival of the morally best? That the
religion which endures is of the highest type? Business success in
the long run, is so strongly based upon mutual confidence and
trust, that, especially in these later days of credit organization,
the dishonest man or even the tricky man cannot prosper long. A
sales manager of a prominent institution said lately that the chief
difficulty that he had with his men was to make them always tell
the truth. For the sake of making an important sale they were
often inclined to misrepresent his goods. "But nothing," he added,
"will so surely kill all business as misrepresentation." Even a
gambling book-maker on the race tracks in New York, before such
work was forbidden by law, is said to have proudly claimed that
absolute justice and honesty toward his customers was essential to
his success and had therefore become the rule of his life.
Although it is sometimes said that the man who guides his life by
the maxim, "Honesty is the best policy," is in reality not honest
at heart, it must nevertheless be granted that in business the
survival of the fittest means the survival of the most honest
business man.
It may perhaps have been true in the days of Machiavelli that
cruelty and treachery would aid the unscrupulous petty despot of
Italy to secure and at times to maintain his dukedom; but certainly
in modern days, when in all civilized countries permanently
prosperous government is based ultimately upon the will of the
people, the successful ruler can no longer be treacherous and
cruel. Even among our so-called "spoils" politicians and corrupt
bosses, who hold their positions by playing upon the selfishness of
their followers and the ignorance and apathy of the public, there
must be rigid faithfulness to promises, and, at any rate, the
appearance of promoting the public welfare. Otherwise their term
of power is short.
If we look back through the history of modern times, we shall find
that the statesmen who rank high among the successful rulers of
their countries are men of unselfish patriotism, and almost
invariably men of personal uprightness and morality, and usually of
deep religious feeling. Think over the names of the great men of
the United States, and note their characters. Pick out the leading
statesmen of the last half century in England, Germany and Italy.
Do they not all stand for unselfish, patriotic purpose in their
actions, and in character for individual honor and integrity?
The same is true in our social intercourse. Brilliancy of
intellect, however important in many fields of activity, counts for
relatively little in home and social life, if not accompanied by
graciousness of manner, kindness of heart, uprightness of
character. It may sometimes seem that the brilliant rascal
succeeds, that the unscrupulous business man becomes rich, and that
the hypocrite prospers through his hypocrisy. If all society were
made up of men of these low moral types, would such cases perhaps
be more often found than now? In a society of hypocrites, would
the fittest for survival be the most skilful deceiver? Or, even
there, would the adage, "There must be honor among thieves," hold,
when it came to permanent organization? But, whatever your answer,
society fortunately is not made up of hypocrites or rascals of any
kind. With all the weakness of human nature found in every
society, the growing success of the rule of the people throughout
the world proves that fundamentally men and women are honest and
true. Generally common human nature is for the right. Almost
universally, if a mooted question touching morals can be put simply
and squarely before the people, they will see and choose the right.
Fortunate it is for the world that the lessons taught by the early
Hebrew writers regarding the survival of the moral and upright are
true, and that good sense and religion both agree that in the long
run, honor and virtue and righteousness not only pay the
individual, but are essential to the prosperity of a nation.
_Questions for Further Consideration_.
Had most primitive peoples a tradition regarding the flood? How do
you explain the striking points of similarity between the flood
stories of peoples far removed from each other?
Is there geological evidence that the earth, during human history,
has been completely inundated?
What do you mean by a calamity? Is it a mere accident, or an
essential factor in the realization of the divine purpose in human
history?
Are appalling calamities, like floods and earthquakes, the result
of the working out of natural laws? Are they unmitigated evils?
Were the floods in China and the plagues in India, which destroyed
millions of lives, seemingly essential to the welfare of the
surviving inhabitants of those overpopulated lands?
What were the effects of the Chicago fire and the San Francisco
earthquake upon these cities? How far was the development of the
modern commission form of city government one of the direct results
of the Galveston flood?
To what extent is the modern progress in sanitation due to natural
calamities? What calamities?
Is a great calamity often necessary to arouse the inhabitants of a
city or nation to the development of their resources and to the
realisation of their highest possibilities? What illustrations can
you cite?
How do changes in the environment of men affect the moral quality
of their acts? How do circumstances affect the kind of act that
will be successful? During the Chinese revolution of 1912 in
Peking and Nanking, looting leaders of mobs and plundering soldiers
when captured were promptly decapitated without trial. Was such an
act right? Was it necessary? What conditions would justify such
an act in the United States? Would the same act tend equally to
preserve the government in both countries?
_Subjects for Further Study_.
(1) Flood Stories among Primitive Peoples. Worcester, _Genesis_
361-373; Hastings, _Dict. of Bible_ Vol. II, 18-22; Extra Vol.
181-182; _Encyc. Brit_.
(2) The Scientific Basis of the Biblical Account of the Flood.
Ryle, _Early Narratives of Gen_. 112-113; Davis, _Gen. and Semitic
Traditions_ 130-131; Driver, _Genesis_ 82-83, 99; Sollas, _Age of
the Earth_, 316 ff.
(3) Compare the treatment accorded their rivals and competitors for
power in their various fields by the following persons: Solomon,
Caesar Borgia, the late Empress Dowager of China (Tz'u-hsi),
Bismarck, the great political leaders of today in Great Britain and
the United States and the modern combinations of capital known as
trusts.
I Kings 1; Machiavelli, _The Prince_; Douglas, _Europe and the Far
East_, Ch. 17.
Did these different methods under the special circumstances result
in the survival of the fittest? The fittest morally?