Изображения страниц

breaking up the home life which father or mother would be trying to establish." You imply that it would actually be like attacking the home, or making war on it. "Almost that," you admit.

If, on the other hand, you obeyed those rules, what would you be doing for your home besides pleasing your father and mother? "Why, one would be trying to help make the home life better, or to improve the home."

Do you see, then, how by obeying such rules you would be serving the home? "Surely!"

How, then, would it be with one's country; would the same point apply there? "Yes, in a way," you admit, "one would be serving one's country by obeying its laws." But why? "Oh, because we should have a better country if the people obey rules in a spirit of mutual helpfulness.

And you think, do you, that breaking the laws would in a sense be like making war on your country? "Something like that?" Yes; I think so, too. A man obeys the law not just for himself, but in order to serve his country. Being a citizen implies obeying laws.

Then does it seem as if obeying the law meant in a sense acting like soldiers in defense of one's country? "Yes, in a way?" But there would be no real war going on, I assert. "No," you say, "only we should be helping one another like soldiers in maintaining that kind of discipline which alone would make it possible to have any country at all."

"But then," you add, "laws may interfere with people; why should people all keep the same rules; why should not each man go his own way; why not get along without being citizens of a state and putting such restraint upon ourselves?"

One cannot be surprised at your question. A great many earnest, sober, thoughtful people have asked it.

But I should like to quote a sentence to you, a saying from a great man who lived some hundreds of years ago, by the name of Spinoza. It runs like this:

"The man whom reason guides is freer when he lives in a community under the bond of common laws, than when he lives in a solitude where he obeys himself alone."

Now does that not seem perplexing? It is contrary to what would at first occur to our minds. When a man is alone, he can do just as he pleases, can he not? "It looks that way?"

As you say, when we come to live together, we must have rules or laws that interfere with our freedom. What sense can there be in that saying of Spinoza? Do you think he was mistaken?

"Not necessarily?" Why not? "Because if a number of persons live and work together, they can achieve more." You mean that in so far as they may accomplish more, they would be more free in their actions? "Yes, it might be so."

If, however, they work together, can each work in his own way? "No, in that case they must have rules or laws." It would seem then, after all, as if perhaps Spinoza were right.

Note to the Teacher: Explain this sentence of Spinoza a little further. Illustrate from the experience of boys who might band together in order to play games; if they do this, they must keep certain rules. Yet somehow they would feel as if they could do more or had more pleasure than if they played each one alone by himself. More than that, point out, if the pupils are capable of understanding the point, how by combining together, we are able to get more freedom from the bondage of physical nature. In this way, we enlarge the scope of our lives and so enlarge the scope of our freedom.

When people walk together, for example, what do they try to do in their walking? "Keep step?"

Yes, surely! But why should they do this? It may interfere with their freedom. Why should they not go ahead and each man walk as he pleases?

"Because it actually makes the walking easier to keep step with one another." You imply that you feel more freedom by obeying a rule in that case, than by acting just as the impulse might urge you? "It would seem that way," you confess.

It looks, does it, as if obeying laws really might give us more freedom, if we obey them in the right spirit?

In this connection, I should like to suggest a beautiful word which may bring out the point we have been discussing. When people act together for a certain purpose, it is sometimes said that they,now can you think what to add? It begins with the letter C, and then a double o. "Co-operate?" Yes, that is the term I am speaking of. They are said to co-operate.

What principle, then, would they be following? "That of co-operation?" Precisely! In a certain sense, therefore, the state is like a great Co-operative Institution, is it not, in which we keep step together, if for no other reason, in order to achieve more in what we are trying to do. And we keep step together supremely by OBEYING THE LÂW.

Points of the Lesson.

I. That laws emanate from the state by the authority of the people.

II. That there are national laws, state laws, city laws and the Common Law.

III. That the state or government is limited in making laws by the written Constitution.

IV. That people sometimes find it hard to obey the laws, because it may be against their personal desires or interests to do so.

V. That obedience to law is a form of service a citizen owes to his country.

VI. That disobedience to law is like making war on one's country.

VII. That one could have more freedom by being a citizen of a state than if one lived without a government.

VIII. That in obedience to law, we are helping to build

up the state for the future and are fostering a spirit of cooperation.


I. We ought to obey the laws because they are the laws of the sovereign state.

II. We ought to obey the laws as service due from us to our country.

III. We ought to obey the laws even if such obedience is contrary to our desires or personal in


IV. We ought to obey the laws because only thus can we have a state or any kind of civilization.

Story: The Death of Socrates.

When talking of respect for law, I have always been led to think of one great man who lived a long while ago. He was not a great soldier, not what we should call a great statesman, but he had a great mind and a noble character. He belongs to the world's greatest martyrs.

I want to tell you about the death of this man, whose name was Socrates, and of the way he died. He had been a plain man, never making any pretensions for himself, never in any way being inclined to boast or talk about himself. He was not a pleasing person to look upon, being a man with a short, stumpy figure, with large, bulging eyes, so that people who did not know him used to laugh at him a great deal, because of his ugliness; while those who were with him a great deal forgot about this and at times even thought him handsome, because of the way he could talk and of what he would say. The man's mind and character seemed all to come into his face when he was teaching others.

Socrates gave himself over to the life of a teacher. There were no public schools such as we have nowadays; but what he tried to do was to teach grown people. He used to go out into the streets or the market place where the people came in great numbers, and there he would talk with them. His chief purpose was to get the people to think about right and wrong and to care more about leading a good life. Even bad people, many of them, were fond of him and stood-in awe of him because of his simplicity. He was poor and he cared little about what he had to eat and drink, because of his desire to stir and influence people about those higher things.

By and by, however, some of the people in the city of Athens, where he lived, grew tired of him and began to hate

him. He made them uncomfortable by talking all the time about the kind of life which they despised. At last when he became an old man, an effort was made to have him tried before the courts for wicked teachings, in order that he might be put to death. It is almost impossible for us to understand this, because his teachings had been just the opposite of wicked. But they told lies about him, brought witnesses who made charges that were not true; and hence, alas! the great Socrates was condemned to die.

He was now about seventy years old. I suppose it cut him to the heart to think that people whom he had loved so much, and for whom he had worked so hard, and to whom he had tried to be a teacher of good things, could be the very ones to turn about and wish to put him to death. But he had a sweet, gentle nature, which led him to wish to return good for evil. He seems to have shown no anger at the judgment against him, believing that in the course of time the world would understand his motives and appreciate what he had been trying to do. His belief in this matter was justified, because now the world looks upon him as having been a martyr, one who died for a noble cause. It is because of his calm, beautiful way in meeting death that I am telling you about him.

It seems that while he was in prison, an opportunity came to him by which he might escape. The people would not have known of it until he was free. He had a chance to run away, go to some other country and pass the rest of his days in peace. And what do you suppose he did when this chance was made known to him?

One of his friends came to him, urging him to flee, and said to him: "O my dear Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my advice and escape, for if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do know you and me will believe that I might have saved you if I had given you money, but that I did not care. Can there be a worse disgrace than this, that I should be thought to value money more than the life of a friend? For the many will not be persuaded that I wanted you to escape and that you refused."

And to this, Socrates answered: "But why should we care about the thinking of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons worth considering, will think of these things as they happen." And Socrates refused to escape, because, as he said, it had been decided by the law and the government under which he lived that he should be put to death. His reply was: "It is better to die by obeying the laws than to escape by defying them."

But the man went on pleading with him and trying in every possible way to win him over to the plan for escaping from the prison. And then Socrates pictured to him a kind of dream which we may fancy had come to him. It was to

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »