FIELD AND STUDY 



The confusion and contradiction in our minds on 

 the question of might versus right begins when we 

 introduce our moral standards into universal prob- 

 lems. Right is a relative and limited term. Nature 

 outside of man knows it not; she -knows only power, 

 progress, success. Right and wrong apply to our 

 conscious human conduct, and not to the processes 

 of Nature. It is wrong for me consciously to cheat 

 my neighbor; it is right for me to be a better farmer, 

 a better mechanic, a better tradesman than he is, 

 and thus win over him in the competition of life. 

 Natural right and moral right* are two separate 

 things. It is not wrong for fire to burn us, or floods 

 to drown us, or disease to consume us; it is only 

 natural. Winds and waves are guiltless, no matter 

 how much we suffer from them. When there is no 

 conscience, there is neither right nor wrong. Our 

 natural rights are limited to the use of the means 

 by which we can make the most: of ourselves with- 

 out hindrance to others. 



Where, then, in human affairs* are we justified in 

 saying that might makes right? Only in those cases 

 where results flow from causes that are over and 

 above our conscious wills and purpose. Power will 

 make itself felt. Natural law rules largely in the 

 human realm. 



Shall the meek inherit the earth? Can they? Sup- 

 pose the law of love, of good-willj, of cooperation, of 

 doing to others as you would be done by, had pre- 

 282 



