268 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



But there should not be any com- 

 petition at all, the socialist will re- 

 ply; competition is itself immoral. 

 Again, let us get close to the facts. 

 Competition, if we consider it as a 

 word, is an abstract noun — so the 

 grammarians used to tell us — and 

 abstract nouns can not be accused of 

 immorality. If we consider it as a 

 thing, then it is a form of human 

 action, and we must throw the im- 

 morality back on the men who prac- 

 tice it. Now, in what individual 

 action does the immorality begin ? 

 Let us, if possible, get at the fons et 

 origo malt. A certain household 

 requires a domestic servant. Is it 

 wrong to decide between the appli- 

 cants according to their merits ? Is 

 it wrong to reject an inefficient per- 

 son in favor of an efficient ? A man 

 wants a tutor for his boys. Is it 

 wrong to insist on proofs of scholar- 

 ship and character ? A merchant 

 wants a bookkeeper. May he be 

 allowed to prefer one who comes to 

 him with good recommendations to 

 one who has none, and whose ap- 

 pearance and manner are not in his 

 favor ? If such things as these are 

 permissible, we have the outlines of 

 competition clearly traced; yet is 

 there anything immoral in assigning 

 a task, with its accompanying re- 

 ward, to the person best qualified to 

 perform it? But the w^orld, it will 

 pei^haps be contended, should not be 

 arranged in such a way as to allow 

 two persons to want the same thing. 

 Possibly, if some of our socialist 

 friends could " grasp this sorry 

 scheme of things entire," they might 

 do some notable "remolding"; but 

 whether they would really advance 

 human happiness is quite an open 

 question. Zola somewhere says that 

 if they had their way they would 

 make the very dogs howl with de- 

 spair; but, however that may be, it is 

 evidently difficult to fix the responsi- 

 bility for competition on any power 



less general than that which made 

 the world. 



The golden rule (to get back to it) 

 bids us do to others as we would be 

 done by. The rule is laid down for 

 all alike, and, strictly speaking, no 

 one is entitled to claim the benefit 

 of it who is disregarding it in his 

 own practice. The man who shuns 

 honest industry is not doing as he 

 would be done by ; he wishes others 

 to work that he may eat. Yet, if we 

 mistake not, the golden rule is often 

 invoked on behalf of those who are 

 systematic viola tors of it, whose whol e 

 lives are an injury to society. No 

 moral rule could ever have been in- 

 tended to place us at the mercy of 

 one another's desires, and in the case 

 of this particular precept we are re- 

 quired to seek within ourselves, and 

 not simply in the desires of others, 

 the law we are to follow. It is what 

 ive would that men should do to us 

 that we are to do to them. The re- 

 sponsibility is thus thrown upon us of 

 determining the demands which, in 

 given circumstances, we would make 

 — i. e., ought to make — of other men. 

 Which of us, then, would say, " We 

 demand that, whenever we want a 

 thing, we shall get it, no matter what 

 claims others may have, or think 

 they have, to the same thing" ; or, 

 " We demand that whatever we ask 

 for we shall get, independently of 

 merit or qualification on our part" ? 

 If such demands need only to be 

 formulated in order to be seen to be 

 absurd, the conclusion comes home 

 to us again with force that the only 

 demand we can really make is one 

 for fair play and justice. 



There is nothing wrong with 

 competition as such, for it is merely 

 a necessary form of sifting with a 

 view to obtaining a proper adjust- 

 ment of each man to his place in 

 life. That it works perfectly to 

 that end, no one would care to pre- 

 tend; but it has that end in view, 



