The Foundations of Personality, Abraham Myerson [books to read to be successful txt] 📗

>not come from the law-abiding in spirit; it is the rebel who

changes laws. Without the law-abiding, disciplined spirit there

would be only anarchy, and though men have obeyed frightful laws

and still do, this is better than no social discipline. A

revolution occurs when the discipline, i.e., the rules and

regulations and the rulers and regulators, have not kept pace

with the new ideas that have permeated society. Men are willing

to be governed; nay, they demand it, but there must be at least a

rude conformity between the governed and the laws by which they

are governed. In other words, discipline of any kind is welcome

if the disciplined believe it to be right and just. Men accept

punishment for infraction of a law if they believe themselves to

be rightfully punished, but rebel against unjust discipline.

 

There are those who deny either openly or covertly the right of

society to regulate their lives or desires. In modern literature

this type of rebel is quite favor, ably depicted, although he is

usually represented as finally punished in one way or another.

Where a man rebels against a specific type of restriction but

favors another kind he is a reformer; if however he favors merely

the removal of restriction and regulation[1] he is an anarchist

and, in my opinion, without real knowledge of life. While the

rebel who denies the right of discipline exists, he is rare; the

commonest rebel does not deny society’s right to regulate but

either will not or cannot keep his rebel desires in conformity.

Most criminals are of this type, and the inability to conform may

arise from many defects in training or original character.

 

[1] Watch a busy crossing when the traffic policeman is at work,

regulating and disciplining. Everything is orderly,

smooth-working, and no one complains. Let him step away for a

moment; at once there is confusion, danger and the intensely

competitive spirit of the drivers comes out, with the skillful

and reckless and selfish invading the rights of the less skilled,

timid and considerate. The policeman’s return is welcomed by the

bulk of the drivers. There are very many points of similarity

between society and the busy crossing which need no elaboration

on my part.

 

In fact, though we may rebel against discipline and its various

social modifications, most of us are quite anxious that others

shall be disciplined and raise the hue and cry at once when they

rebel. Behind this dislike of the rebel is certainly the feeling

that he predicates a superiority for himself by so doing, and

this injures our self-esteem. Of course there is and may be a

genuine belief that he menaces society and its stability, but

those who raise this cry the loudest are usually themselves

menaced either in authority and power or in some more direct

cashable value.

 

The qualities which are now to be briefly discussed are in the

main great inhibitions. The moral code is in great part and by

the majority of men understood as inhibition and prohibition. A

man is held to be honest if he does not steal and truthful if he

does not lie. In reality this conception is largely correct, and

it is as we extend our ideas of stealing and lying that we grow

in morality.

 

Honesty, in relation to property, is the control of the

acquisitive impulses and instincts and is wrapped up with the

idea of private property. The acquisitive impulses are very

strong in most people but not necessarily in all, and we find

great variability here as elsewhere in human character. One child

desires everything he sees, wants it for his own and does not

wish others even to touch it, while another gives away everything

he has. The covetous, the indifferent, the generous, the

hoarders, the spenders,—these are a few of the types one finds

every day in relation to the property and acquisitive feelings.

 

The spirit of “mine” needs on the whole little encouragement,

though the ways to achieve “mine” are part of education. Mainly

the spirit of “thine” needs encouragement, and most of our law,

as differentiated from religion and ethics, has been built up on

settling disputes in this matter. In its primary form, honesty in

relation to property is the willingness to conform to society’s

rulings in this matter, e.g., the belief in ownership as sacred

and that to acquire something desired one must (ethical must) go

through certain recognized procedures. The whole conception rests

on the social instinct’s inhibitions of the acquisitive instinct

and in the growth and strength of feelings of conscience and duty

as previously described. Social heredity and tradition operate

very powerfully in the matter of this kind of honesty; to steal,

as we see it, from neighboring tribes is ethical for savage

races, and even to steal such property as women. Throughout the

ages the booty of war was one of the recognized rights of

warriors, and even though to-day we have conventions protecting

the private property of the enemy, this is one of those rules

definitely understood as made to be broken.

 

Stealing is very common among children, who find their desire for

good things too strong to be inhibited. But very quickly the

average child learns control in so far as certain types of

stealing are concerned. Some, however, never cease to steal, and

in my opinion and experience this is true of those who become

thieves later on. In very few cases do those who are eventually

pickpockets and second-story men first develop their art in

adolescence or youth; they have stolen from earliest childhood.

Those who steal for the first time in adult life are usually

those exposed to great temptations and occupying a position of

trust, such as the bank officer or the trusted employee. Here the

stress of overexpensive tastes, of some financial burden or the

desire to get rich quick through speculation overcome inhibition,

especially as it is too often assumed by the speculator that he

will be able to return the money.

 

How widespread petty stealing is will be attested to by the hotel

keeper and high-grade restaurant owner, whose yearly losses of

linen, silver and bric-a-brac are enormous. The “best” people do

not think it really wrong to do this, especially if the things

taken have a souvenir value. Farmers whose fruit trees adjoin a

public thoroughfare will also state that the average automobilist

has quite a different code of morals for apples and pears than

for money and gasoline.

 

“Caveat emptor”—let the buyer beware! This has been the motto of

the seller of merchandise since the beginning of trade. It has

made for a lot of cheating of various kinds, some of which has

persisted as part of the practice of at least many merchants up

to this day. Cheating in weight or quantity led to laws; and

there cannot be any relaxation in these laws, or false scales and

measures immediately appear. Cheating in quality led to

adulterations in food stuffs which were veritably poisonous, so

that it became necessary for each great nation to pass stringent

laws to prevent very respectable and very rich men from poisoning

their customers. Cheating in fabrics still flourishes and in

unsuspected quarters, not always those of the small dealer. And,

misrepresentation flourished in advertising openly and blatantly

until very recently. It is true that advertising has changed its

tastes and uses dignified and high-flown language, protesting the

abnormally virtuous ideal of service of the article advertised;

but can it be true that the makers of every car believe it to be

so remarkable in performance and appearance?

 

To the credit of American merchants let it be stated that a

widespread improvement has taken place in these matters, and that

on the whole there never was a more unanimous determination to

render service as at present. Yet while the goal of business is

profit, and the goal of the buyer is the bargain, so long will

there be a mutual over-reaching that does not fall far short of

dishonesty.

 

There are types that are scrupulously honest in that they will

not take a penny of value not obtained in the orthodox way of

buying, trading or earning, who will take advantage of necessity,

whose moral code does not include that fine sense of honor that

spurns taking advantage of adversity. These are the real

profiteers, and in the last analysis they add to their dishonesty

an essential cruelty, though often they are pillars of the

church.

 

I have dwelt on the dishonest; the types of honest men and women

who give full value in work and goods to all whom they deal with

are of course more numerous. The industrial world revolves around

those who resist temptation, who work faithfully, who give honest

measure and seek no unfair advantage. But that business is no

brotherhood is an old story, and poor human nature finds itself

forced by necessity and competition into ways that are devious

and not strictly honest. It’s the system that is at fault, for

men have formed a scheme of creating and distributing values that

severely tries and often weakens their ideals.

 

Truth in the sense of saying what is true and truth in the sense

of getting at ultimate relations are two different matters. The

first kind of truth is the basis of social intercourse, the

second kind the goal of philosophic efforts.

 

Speaking the truth invariably is not an easy matter and in the

strictest sense is quite questionable as to value. The white lie,

so-called, the pleasant, assumed interest, the untruth intended

to smooth social relations are shock absorbers and are part of

the courtesy technique.

 

In a more technical sense, the untruth told to obtain some

advantage or to escape the disagreeable in one form or another is

held to be dishonorable, but is very widely practiced. People are

enraged at being deceived if the deception is the work of an

outsider or one not liked; they are shocked if deceived, lied to,

by one they love. The lie stands as the symbol of weakness, but

to be “taken in” has more than the material hurt the lie

inflicts; it wounds vanity and brings doubt and suspicion into

social relations, all of which are very disagreeable. It is held

by ethical teachers to be worse to lie about faults than to have

committed the faults, though this may be modified to mean only

the minor faults.

 

All judges and lawyers will testify that “the truth, the whole

truth and nothing but the truth” is very seldom told in court.

Controversy is the enemy of truth, and when the fighting spirit

is aroused, candor disappears. Where any great interest is

involved, where the opponent is seeking to dispossess or to evade

payment, or where legal punishment may be felt, the truth must be

forced from most people. Moreover, passion blinds, and the

natural and astonishing inaccuracy in observation and

reporting[1] that every psychologist knows is multiplied wherever

great emotions are at work. If perjury were really punished, the

business of the courts would be remarkably increased.

 

[1] Not only is this true in law but in all controversy, whether

theological, scientific, social or personal, the ego-feeling

enters in its narrowest and blindest aspects to defeat honor,

justice and truth.

 

All this is normal lying,—not habitual but occurring under

certain circumstances. As clearly motivated is the lying of the

braggart, the one who invents stories that emphasize his

exceptional qualities. The braggart however is a mere novice as

compared with the “pathological liar,” who does not seem able to

tell the truth, who invents continually and who will often

deceive a whole group before he is found out. The motive here is

that curious type of superiority seeking which is the desire to

be piteously interesting, to hold the center