EDITOR'S TABLE. 



267 



■MXjSiX^s 2*aMje. 



COMPETITION AND THE GOLDEN 

 RULE. 



THERE are some advocates of so- 

 cialism who sum up their ar- 

 guments against the existing social 

 regime by affirming that comxietition 

 is the direct negation of that rule of 

 conduct which enjoins upon us to 

 do unto others as we would that 

 they should do unto us. The issue 

 is a simple one and deserves a brief 

 discussion. 



Let us first consider the meaning 

 and scope of the principle of action 

 to which appeal is made. It is ap- 

 parent, at the first glance, that it 

 is meant to prohibit and exclude 

 acts of wrongdoing and aggression 

 which, if applied to ourselves, we 

 should feel disposed to resent and if 

 possible to resist. Of a large class 

 of such acts the law takes cognizance, 

 making itself the protector and 

 avenger of those who have suffered 

 injury. But if we take a number of 

 typical cases of competition we shall 

 see that they involve no aggression 

 whatever and justify no resentment. 

 Nearlj' all sports, to begin with, are 

 competitive; but the winning of a 

 game, provided it is done by fair 

 means, is no violation of the golden 

 rule. True, the loser wanted to win, 

 but he did not want his opponent to 

 let him win. All that can be de- 

 manded or desired of opponents in 

 such a case is that they shall play 

 honorably and according to the rules 

 of the game. If the conquered party 

 cherishes any rancorous feelings 

 against the conqueror for having 

 beaten him in fair play, that simply 

 puts him wrong with the golden 

 rule, because he would not have 

 wished such feelings to be cherished 

 against him had he been successful. 



From play we pass to the business 

 of life. Two firms tender for a con- 

 tract; two architects submit plans 

 for a building; two teachers apply 

 for a situation ; two politicians con- 

 test the same constituency; two deal- 

 ers carry on business in the same 

 neighborhood. The successful firm, 

 the successful architect, the successful 

 applicant, the successful candidate, 

 the more successful of the two deal- 

 ers — none of these have done any 

 wrong by the mere fact of his suc- 

 cess, nor can he be said to have gone 

 counter to any demand made upon 

 him openly or tacitly by his competi- 

 tors, unless he has gained his point 

 by underhand or otherwise unfair 

 means. Explore the breast of each 

 competitor and what wish do you 

 find formulated there ? A wish to 

 succeed. That of course, but what 

 wish as regards the action of other 

 men ? Is it a wish that the contract, 

 situation, etc., should be given to him 

 on his own terms, without competi- 

 tion or without consideration of the 

 wishes or interests of others ? Such a 

 wish would itself be too obvious a 

 violation of the golden rule to call for 

 discussion; so we are still compelled 

 to ask. What is that wish in the mind 

 of a given individual which could 

 impose itself as a rule of action on 

 others ? The more we think of it the 

 more clearly and irresistibly it ap- 

 pears that the only demand any one 

 can make possessing the least charac- 

 ter of moral authority is a demand 

 for justice, for fair dealing. In the 

 cases above supposed every demand 

 which an individual could avow 

 would be met by fair dealing on 

 the part of his competitors and of 

 those upon whom the award de- 

 pended. 



