Part 16

CHARITY.--How shall we distinguish charity from justice? It is said that every one is justified in claiming from others what belongs to him as a matter of right, but that no one can exact charity. The characteristic mark of charity is supposed to be that it is freely given. But if I happen to be rich and can afford to supply the need of another am I not morally bound to do so, and has not my indigent neighbor a real claim upon me? Again, it has been said that the term justice is applied to claims which are capable of being formulated in general rules and imposed alike on all men in their dealings with one another, while in the case of charity both the measure and the object of it are to be freely determined by each one. We are free, according to this view, to decide whether a claim upon us exists or not; but, the claim once having been admitted, it is as binding upon us as any of the demands of justice. But, while this is true, I hold that nevertheless there exists a clear distinction between the virtues of justice and charity. We owe justice to our equals, charity to our inferiors. The word "inferior" is to be understood in a carefully limited sense. An employer owes his workmen, as a matter of justice, the wages he has agreed to pay. Though they may be socially his inferiors, in regard to this transaction they are his equals. They have agreed to render him certain services and he has agreed to return them an equivalent.

Justice says Do not hinder the development of others; Charity says Assist the development of others. The application of the rule of charity will make its meaning clear.

1. Justice says do not destroy life; Charity says save life. Rescue from the flames the inmates of a burning house; leap into the waves to save a drowning fellow-creature. Such persons are dependent on your help. They are therefore with respect to you in an inferior position.

Discuss with the class the limitations of this duty. I am not bound to jump into the water, for instance, when I see a person drowning unless I can swim. In fact, it would be culpable foolhardiness in me to do so. Discuss the following casuistical case: A child is lying on the railroad track and a locomotive is rapidly approaching. Am I bound to make the attempt to draw it away from the track? Does it make any difference whether I am single or the father of a family and have others dependent on me? In general, the attempt to save should not be made unless there is a distinct chance of succeeding without the sacrifice of one's own life; but we are justified in taking great risks, and courage and self-reliance are evinced in the degree of risk we are willing to take. There are cases, however, in which the deliberate sacrifice of one life for another is in the highest degree praiseworthy when, namely, the life to be saved is regarded as far more precious than our own. Instance the soldier who intercepts the thrust which is aimed at the life of his general. Instance the parent who in the Johnstown flood was seen to push his child to a place of safety and was then swept away by the current.

2. _Assist the needy._ This may be done by giving bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, shelter to the homeless, by caring for the sick, advancing loans to those who are struggling toward self-support, etc. The rule of charity is based on respect for the personality of others. We are required to assist those who are too weak to hold their own, with a view of putting them on their feet again. The aim of all charity should be to make those who are dependent on it independent of it. From this point of view all mere almsgiving, all that so-called charity which only serves to make the dependent classes more dependent, stands condemned. But the true test of charity, upon which the greatest stress should be laid, is to be found in the way it reacts upon the charitable themselves. Right relations, whatever their nature, are always mutually beneficial. Does the deed of charity react beneficially on the doer? is the test question to be asked in every instance. Take the case of a person who gives large sums to the poor in the hope of seeing his name favorably mentioned in the newspapers. The motive in this case is vanity, and the effect of this spurious sort of charity is to increase the vanity of the donor. The reaction upon him, therefore, is morally harmful. Again, take the case of a person who gives capriciously, at the bidding of impulse, without considering whether his gifts are likely to be of lasting benefit to the recipients. He is confirmed in his habit of yielding to impulse, and the reaction is likewise morally injurious. On the other hand, the retroactive effects of true charity are most beneficial. In the first place, a reaction will take place in the direction of greater simplicity in our own lives. A person can not be seriously and deeply interested in the condition of the poor, can not truly realize the hardships which they suffer, without being moved to cut off superfluous expenditure. Secondly, true charity will teach us to enter into the problems of others, often so unlike our own; to put ourselves in their places; to consider how we should act in their circumstances; to fight their battles for them; and by this means our moral experience will be enlarged, and from being one, we become, as it were, many men. True charity will also draw closer the bond of fellowship between the poor and us, for we shall often discover virtues in them which we do not possess ourselves; and sometimes, at least, we shall have occasion to look up with a kind of awe to those whom we are aiding. In connection with the discussion of charity, let the teacher relate the biographies of John Howard, Sister Dora, Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth Fry, and others, who have been distinguished for their devotion to the suffering.

3. _Cheer up the sad._ Explain that a bright smile may often have the value of an act of charity. In general, emphasize the duty of suppressing irritability, ill humor, and moodiness, and of contributing to the sunshine of our households.[19]

4. _Console the bereaved._ The afflicted are for the moment weak and dependent; it is the office of loving charity to make them independent. Here the same train of reasoning is applicable as above in the case of the poor. It serves no useful purpose merely to sit down by the side of the sorrowful and to weep with them. They do need sympathy, but they also need, at least after the first paroxysms of grief have subsided, to be roused.

The true cure for suffering is action. Those who suffer need to be nerved to action; they need to be shown, above all, the new duties which their situation entails. He who can point out to them the way of duty, and can give them of his own strength to walk in that way, is their best friend--he is the true consoler.

5. I have yet to speak of mental charity and of moral charity. Mental charity is practiced by the wise teacher, who puts his pupils on the road to knowledge, who helps them to discover their true vocation, and who, when they are involved in doubt and difficulty, succeeds in giving them the clew by which they can find an exit into mental clearness and light.

6. Moral charity is practiced by those who bend down to the sinful and the fallen, and awaken in them a new hope and trust in the good and in themselves. The charity which effects moral regeneration is perhaps the highest type of all, and of this I know no more fitting nor more sublime example than the dealing of Jesus with the outcasts of society.

NOTE.--Without attempting to forestall further philosophical analysis, we may perhaps assume, as a working hypothesis, as a provisional principle of deduction in ethics, the principle of organization. The individual is an organ of humanity. It is his duty to discharge, as perfectly as possible, his special functions; hence the need of insisting on respect for individuality throughout. Even the self-regarding duties would have no meaning were not the complex whole in view, in the economy of which each member is required to perform his part. As in every organism, so in this, each separate organ serves, and is served in turn by all the others, and can attain its highest development only through this constant interaction. To complete the thought, it would be necessary to add that certain organs are more closely connected than others, and form lesser organisms within and subservient to the whole. This, however, is merely thrown out as a suggestion addressed to the student of ethics.

THE DUTY OF GRATITUDE.--Upon this subject much might be said, did not the fact that the time at our command is nearly exhausted warn us to use even greater brevity than heretofore in dealing with the topics that remain. To bring out the right relations between benefactor and beneficiary, let the teacher put the question, Why is it wrong to cast up the benefits we have conferred to the one who has received them? And why, on the other hand, is it so base in the latter to show himself ungrateful. The reason is to be found in the respect due to the personality of others, to which we have so often alluded. Kant says that every human being is to be treated as an end in himself, and not merely as a means or a tool. In effect, the person who ignores benefits says to his benefactor: You are my tool. It is unnecessary for me to recognize your services, because you are not an independent person to be respected, but a creature to be made use of at pleasure. Ingratitude is a slur on the moral personality of others. On the other hand, he who casts up benefits practically says you have forfeited your independence through the favors you have accepted. I have made your personality tributary to mine.

An excellent rule is that of Seneca. The benefactor should immediately forget what he has given; the beneficiary should always remember what he has received. True gratitude is based on the sense of our moral fellowship with others. The gifts received and returned are mere tokens of this noble relationship (as all gifts should be). You have just given to me. I will presently give to you twice as much again, or half as much, it matters not which, when occasion arises. We will further each other's aims as best we can, for the ends of each are sacred to the other.

DUTIES TO SERVANTS.--Having spoken of the duties which we owe to all men, I may here refer to certain special duties, such as the duties toward servants. These may also be introduced in connection with the duties of the family, after the filial and fraternal duties have been considered. I have space only to mention the following points:

1. Servants are laborers. The same respect is due to them as to all other laborers.

2. They are not only laborers, but in a special sense helpers. They are members of the household in a subordinate capacity, and in many cases identify themselves closely with the interests of the family. They are, as it were, lay brothers and lay sisters of the family. From these considerations may be deduced the duties which we owe toward servants.

DUTIES WITH REGARD TO ANIMALS.--I can not admit that we have duties toward animals. We can not very well speak of duties toward creatures on which we in part subsist; but there are duties with respect to animals. Man is a rational being, and as such takes a natural delight in that orderly arrangement and interdependence of parts which are the visible counterpart of the rational principle in his own nature. We ought not to step on or heedlessly crush under our feet even a single flower. Much less should we ruthlessly destroy the more perfect organism which we see in animals. Add to this that animals are sentient creatures, and that the useless infliction of pain tends to develop cruelty in us. As a practical means of fostering kindness toward animals, I suggest the following: Get your pupils interested in the habits of animals. Familiarity in this case will breed sympathy. Speak of the building instincts of bees; of the curious structures raised by those wonderful engineers, the beavers. Give prominence to the love for their young by which the brute creation is brought into closer connection with the human family. Mention especially the fidelity which some animals show toward man (the saving of human lives by St. Bernard dogs, etc.), and the uses which we derive from the various members of the animal creation. As to the fact that we use animals for our sustenance, the highest point of view to take, I think, is this, that man is, so to speak, the crucible in which all the utilities of nature are refined to higher spiritual uses. Man puts the whole of nature under contribution to serve his purposes. He takes trees from the forest in order to build his house, and to fashion the table at which he takes his meals; he brings up metal from the depths of the earth and converts it into tools; he takes clay and forms it into vessels. He also is permitted to pluck flowers wherewith to garnish his feasts, and to make them the tokens of his love; and in the same manner he may actually absorb the life of the lower animals, in order to transform and transfigure it, as it were, into that higher life which is possible only in human society. But it follows that he is a mere parasite and an interloper in nature, unless he actually leads the truly human life.

FOOTNOTE:

[19] For the teacher I add point 4. The duties mentioned under 5 and 6 may be practiced in a simple way by the young in the form of aiding their backward schoolmates, and observing the right attitude toward those of their companions who are in disgrace.

XV.

THE ELEMENTS OF CIVIC DUTY.

It should be the aim of the school not only to connect the system of school duties with the duties of the previous period, but also to prepare the pupils morally for the period which follows. The school is the intermediate link between life in the family and life in society and the state. The course of moral instruction, therefore, culminates for the present in the chapter on civic duties. Needless to say that at this stage the subject can be considered in its elements only.

The claims of the state upon the moral attachment of the citizen can hardly be presented too warmly. Life in the state as well as in the family is indispensable to the full development of character. Man, in his progress from childhood to old age, passes successively through ever-widening circles of duty, and new moral horizons open upon him as he grows out of one into the other. One of the largest of these circles, and, in respect to moral opportunities, one of the richest and most glorious, is the state. It may be said that the whole state exists ideally in every true citizen, or, what amounts to the same, that the true citizen embraces the interests of the state, as if they were his own, and acts from the point of view of the total body politic. Increased breadth of view and elevation of purpose are the moral benefits which accrue to every one who even honestly attempts to be a citizen in this sense.

Much attention is paid in some schools to the machinery of our government. The pupils are expected to learn the exact functions of mayors, city councils, and legislative bodies, the provisions relative to the election of the President, etc. But while these things ought to be known, they relate, after all, only to the externals of government; and it is far more important to familiarize the pupils with the animating spirit of political institutions, with the great ideas which underlie the state. There are especially three political ideas to which I should give prominence; these are, the idea of the supremacy of the law; the true idea of punishment; and the idea of nationality. After we have instilled these ideas, it will be time enough to dwell with greater particularity on the machinery by which it is sought to carry them into effect.

What method shall we use for instilling these ideas? The same which modern pedagogy applies in every branch of instruction. The rule is, Proceed from the known to the unknown; in introducing a new notion, connect it with some analogous notion already in the pupil's possession. The school offers excellent opportunities for developing the two ideas of law and punishment. In every school there exists a body of rules and regulations, or school laws. It should be made plain to the scholars that these laws are enacted for their own good. The government of the school should be made to rest as far as possible on the consent and co-operation of the governed. That school which does not secure on the part of the scholars a willing acceptance of the system of restraints which is necessary for the good of the whole, is a failure. In such an institution the law-abiding spirit can never be fostered.

The play-ground, too, affords a preliminary training for future citizenship. On the play-ground the scholars learn to select and to obey their own leaders, to maintain the rules of the game, and to put down any infraction of them, whether in the shape of violence or fraud. They also learn to defer to the will of the majority--a most important lesson, especially in democratic communities--and to bear defeat good-humoredly.[20]

The true idea of punishment should be brought home to the scholars through the discipline of the school. The ends of punishment are the protection of the community and the reformation of the offender. Nowhere better than in the little commonwealth of the school can these moral aspects of punishment be impressed; nowhere better can the foundation be laid for the changes which are so urgently needed in the dealings of the state with the criminal class. Everything, of course, depends upon the character of the teacher. His reputation for strict justice, the moral earnestness he displays in dealing with offenses, his readiness to forbear and forgive upon the least sign of genuine repentance--these are the means by which he can instill right notions as to what discipline should be. It has been suggested that, when a particularly serious case of transgression occurs, the teacher can sometimes produce a profound moral effect on the class by submitting the case to them as a jury and asking for their verdict.

The idea of nationality I regard as fundamental in political ethics. There is such a thing as national character, national genius, or national individuality. When we think of the Greeks, we think of them as pre-eminent for their achievements in art and philosophy; of the Hebrews, as the people of the Bible; of the Romans, as the founders of jurisprudence, etc. And on turning to the modern nations we find that the talents of the English, the Germans, the French, the Italians, etc., are no less diversified. Morally speaking, it is the mission of each nation in correlation with others to contribute to the universal work of civilization its own peculiar gifts. The state may be regarded as that organization of the public life which is designed _to develop the national individuality_; to foster the national genius in whatever direction it may seek to express itself, whether in industry, art, literature, or science; to clarify its aims, and to raise it to the highest pitch of beneficent power.

Doubtless this idea, as stated, is too abstract to be grasped by the young; but it can be brought down to their level in a tangible way. For the national genius expresses itself in the national history, and more especially is it incorporated in those great leaders, who arise at critical periods to guide the national development into new channels. It is at this point that we realize anew the important support which the teaching of history may give to the moral teaching.[21] Thus the political history of the United States, if I may be permitted to use that as an illustration of my thought, may be divided into three great periods. The struggle with nature occupied the earliest period--that of colonization; in this period we see the American man engaged in subduing a continent. The struggle for political freedom fills the period of the Revolution. The struggle for a universal moral idea lends grandeur to our civil war. The story of these three great struggles should be related with such clearness that the idea which dominated each may stand out in relief, and with such fervor that the pupils may conceive a more ardent love for their country which, at the same time that it holds out immeasurable prospects for the future, already possesses such glorious traditions. There is, however, always a great danger that patriotism may degenerate into Chauvinism. Against this, universal history, when taught in the right spirit, is the best antidote. A knowledge of universal history is an admirable check on spurious patriotism. In teaching it, it is especially desirable that the contribution which each nation has made to the progress of the world be noted and emphasized. Let the teacher speak of the early development of the literature and of the inventive spirit of the despised Chinese; of the high civilization which once flourished on the banks of the Nile; of the immortal debt we owe to Greece and Rome and Judea. Let the young be made acquainted with the important services which Ireland rendered to European culture in the early part of the middle ages. Let them learn, however briefly, of the part which France played in the overthrow of feudalism, of the wealth of German science and literature and philosophy; let them know how much mankind owes to the Parliaments of England, and to the stout heart and strong sense which made parliaments possible. It is not by underrating others, but by duly estimating and appreciating their achievements, that we shall find ourselves challenged to bring forth what is best in ourselves.

There is still another reason why, especially in American schools, the teaching of universal history should receive far greater attention than hitherto has been accorded to it. The American people are imbued with the belief that they have a problem to solve for all mankind. They have set out to demonstrate in the face of doubt and adverse criticism the possibility of popular self-government. They have thus consecrated their national life to a sublime humanitarian idea. And the sense of this consecration, echoing in the utterances of many of their leading statesmen, has more or less permeated the whole people. But the mission thus assumed, like the burden on the shoulders of Christophorus, is becoming heavier at every step. The best citizens recognize that the problem of popular self-government, so far from being solved, is but beginning to disclose itself in all its vast complexity, and they realize more than ever how necessary it is to get every possible help from the example and experience of older nations. The political lessons of the past can not indeed be mastered in the public schools. But a preliminary interest in European history may be created, which will pave the way for profitable study later on.

Furthermore, the American people have extended a most liberal invitation to members of other nationalities (with few restrictions, and these of recent origin) to come and join in working out the destinies of the new continent. Not only is an asylum granted to the oppressed--this were the lesser boon--but the gates of citizenship have been opened wide to the new-comers. What does this mean, if not that the foreigners who come, unless indeed they belong to the weak and dependent classes, are wanted; and wanted not only in their capacity as workers to aid in developing the material resources of the country, but as citizens, to help in perfecting what is still imperfect, to assist in building up in time, on American soil, the true republic.