every man is inclined to place his own interpretation upon each of the three precepts, and, consciously or unconsciously, stretches them in his own favor and against his fellows. It is very difficult for one, in the present state of the world to tell just what it is to “be honest”; to live so that he will “hurt nobody”; or to “render unto everyone his due”—or even to tell just what everyone’s due really is. However, as an example of the reason’s conception of proper conduct, Justinian’s precept is well worth remembering, with the purpose of following it as closely as may be. It will appeal to those who instinctively wish to give all “a square deal,” so far as may be, but who are unable to grasp the still higher teachings. But even those who can manage to live up to Justinian’s precepts, will fall far short of satisfying their neighbors, who will insist upon the observance of certain other things –many of them most ridicuIous things—that have grown to be the custom, or which are insisted upon by certain so-called religious “authorities,” not to speak of the civil ones.
The followers of the Utilitarian school of ethics differ one from the other in their explanations of the cause and history of ethics and rules of human conduct, some thinking that it arose from God speaking through man’s reason, and others taking the more materia1 view that ethics, laws, morals, and rules of conduct are the product of the evolution of the race—the result of accumulated experiences, the trying of this and of that until a fair average has been obtained. Of course to the latter class, morals and rules of conduct are purely matters of the reason of Man, having nothing to do with Divine Law, or Spiritual Knowledge. Herbert Spencer, the great English scientist, is perhaps the best exponent of this last named school, his work, “The Data of Ethics," being a masterpiece of reasoning along these lines. Dharma takes cognizance of each and all of these three schools of ethics, seeing that each has a bit of truth in it, and that all, combined, and welded with the cement of the occult teachings, make a mighty whole. We will show how these apparently conflicting systems may be reconciled. But before doing so it may be better to take another look at the three systems above mentioned, making an analysis of the objections to each as a complete theory, so that we may see the weakness of any one theory taken by itself as well as the strength of the three when combined and joined together with the teachings of Dharma, Let us take them up in the order given above.
(1) THE THEORY OF REVELATION. The principal objection urged against this theory, by the advocates of the other theories, is that there is not sufficient proof of the truth of the revelation. Priests always have claimed to be the mouthpieces of the Almighty, and the revelations have come through these priests in all ages. The advocates of the utilitarian theory of ethics claim that these so-called revelations (when the rule of conduct given out was really for the good of the people, rather than for the benefit of the priests) were really the result of the superior reasoning of the prophet, who, heing head and shoulders above his people, could see what was hest for their needs, and accordingly compiled such rules of conduct into more or less complete codes, stating that they had been given direct by God through the prophet, the priest placing the authorship upon God rather than upon himself, knowing that the people would be more apt to respect and obey a Divine command than one emanating from a mere man. The advocates of the intuitional theory hold that the so-called “revelation really arose from the conscience and intuition of the prophet, who being a more advanced man than his people would be apt to sense more clearly the voice of the spirit, but who would attribute the voice of conscience to God, and who, accordingly would so give out the message. The intuition of the people would enable them to see the “rightness” of the so-called Divine message, and they would accept same with the approval of their consciences. Another objection raised against the Theory of Revelation is that there are many so-called revelations, diGering materially in cletail—each religion having its own set of revelations, through its own prophets and teachers. It is held that if God wished to reveal a code of morals to His people, his revelations would agree, and would be given in such a way that there could be no mistaking them. It is also held that it is impossible to regard any one of these numerous revelations as authoritative, owing to the impossibility of selecting any one from the great number, as as each prophet made equally strong claims that he received the revelation direct from God, and there is no Supreme Court to pass finally upon the matter. It is also objected to that many of the things claimed to have been directed by God have no real connection with morality, but deal with the details of the life of the people, such as the mode of slaughtering animals; the selection of kinds of food; various religious ceremonial, etc. which are as strictly joined as are the rules of conduct, and dually entitled to be regarded as examples of "right and wrong.” Then, again, there are many things sanctioned in these so-called revelations that are contrary to our modern conceptions of morality. Divine commands were given to kill enemies in a most barbarous fashion, which the law of nations now prohibits, and only savage nations now follow. In such a case it would seem that the intuition or reason of man has raised a higher ideal than did God. The same is true of polygamy and slavery, which are not prohibited by the so-called Divine revelations, but which are sanctioned and allowed. A number of similar objections are urged against the theory of the divine revelation of ethics, but the main objection seems to be that there is not sufficient proof of the truth of the revelation, and that reason teaches that the so-called revelations were simply the result of the human reason of the prophets, and were promulgated either with the idea of keeping the people orderly and prosperous, or else, to keep the priesthood in power and authority, or both reasons. The Yogi Philosophy of Dharma recognizes these ohjections, but answers them in its system, as we shall see later on.
(2)THEORY OF INTUITION. The objection to this theory, most frequently advanced, is that the conscience is merely the result of one’s teachings; environment; race; temperament; age; etc,– that the conscience of one man may make it seem wrong to kill a fly, while that of another may make it seem right to kill an enemy—that the conscience of one may make it seem wrong not to share one's all with a stray comer, or to hold any property as one's own, while the conscience of another (a White-chapel pickpocket, for instance), may cause him to perfectly justify himself in stealing whatever he may ]ay his hands upon, and even reprove him for not taking advantage of an opportunity to do so. The conscience of certain of the criminal classes is akin to that of the cat which sees no harm in stealing the cream or bit of meat, and is only deterred fear of punishment. The student of human nature, people and history, knows that conscience largely a matter of race, time, environment and temperament, and he would hesitate at accepting the voice of the conscience of any particular man as a fit source or authority for a code of morals for all people, at all times. He sees that the rules of conduct emanating from the conscience of an undeveloped man would be far below the standard of the average man of our own times, while that given forth by the conscience of a highly developed man would be impossible of compliance with on the part of the average of our race today, by reason of its high precepts and fine distinctions of thought and conduct. And then “conscience” has made people do some things which our own “conscience” of today tells us is “wrong.” People have been burned at the stake—have had holes bored in their tongues—have been tortured physically and mentally at the dictates of the consciences of the persecutors, who were just as sincere as those whom they persecuted,
If the principle of “conscience implicitly followed, the “conscience” of the majority might make things very unpleasant for the minority, it has happened many times in the past. So, you see, the theory that “conscience” as an infallible guide may be attacked severely by its opponents. And yet, the Yogi Philosophy of Dharma, while recognizing these objections, also sees much truth in the theory of intuition or “conscience,” and welds it into place in its system, as we shall see later on in this lesson.
(3) THE THEORY OF UTILITY. This theory often is attacked severely on the ground that it is a purely selfish idea—that the basis of morality offered is “happiness”—the happiness of the individual modified by the happiness of those around him—“the greatest happiness to the greatest number,” in short—and that such a basis fails to recognize the higher destiny of man, being based entirely upon his earthly and material existence. To this the utilitarian very naturally answers that any code of conduct has a more or less selfish basis, inasmuch as a man doing certain things, and refraining from doing certain other things, by reason of hope of Divine approval and reward, or fear of Divine displeasure and punishment, is as selfish as one who is actuated by the idea of material happiness or