SECTION VI Chapter 4. Universality of Moral Precepts/ What does the Golden Rule really mean? "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln Universality of some Moral Precepts Prohibitions against stealing and killing are present in most of the major world religions. Moral ideals urging kindness and forgiveness are, likewise common themes in many religions--including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism--and some of the philosophies of the ancient Greeks. Numerous philosophers have noted the similarity in moral precepts that can be seen in many religions. As Thomas Jefferson once observed: "Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religion agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness) ... In all of them we see good men, and as many in one as another." SILVER Rule to NOT Hurt Others One important moral precept seen in many societies, is a version of the Silver Rule, which asks individuals NOT to hurt others. The Silver Rule is often distinguished from the Golden rule--which asks individuals to go beyond refraining from harming others--and to perform acts of love and kindness as well. Examples of the Silver rule, can be found in the following ancient writings outside of the Judaic-Christian culture. As can be seen below, these rules are often framed in terms of being kind to others, and some can even be considered a form of the Christian Golden Rule: * Ancient Hindu verse, MAHABHARATA: "This is the true rule of life and the sum of duty: do nothing unto others which might cause you pain if it were done to you. Guard and do by the things of others as they do by their own." * Confucious (c 500 BC in China), ANELECTS,12,1): "Is there one word of counsel by which one should act throughout his whole life? It is indeed loving-kindness; do not unto others what you would not have then do unto you." * Socrates (c 5th century BC in Greece, Plato's CRITO)-- "...we ought neither to requite wrong with wrong nor to do evil to anyone, no matter what he may have done to us." * Isocrates (c 370 BC in Greece, NICOLES 71): "Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you. Practice nothing in your deeds for which you condemn others in your words" * Ancient Zorastrian verse. (Note how the second statement is really a form of the Golden rule): "Only that nature can be considered good which refuses to do unto another what is not good for itself. Do as you would be done by." * Buddha (c 6th century BC), also stressed (in different terms) the teachings of the Golden Rule--taking the positive position that one should "cultivate a boundless friendly mind towards all beings", as a "mother watches over her own child, her only child": "Let no one deceive another, let him not despise another in any place, let him not out of anger or resentment with harm to another. "As a mother at the risk of her life watches over her own child, her only child, so also let every one cultivate a boundless friendly mind towards all beings. "And let him cultivate goodwill towards all the world, a boundless friendly mind, above and below and across, unobstructed, without hatred, without enmity. "Standing, walking or sitting or lying, as long as he be awake, let him devote himself to this mind; this way of living they say is the best in this world. (Buddha (6th century B.C. as quoted in the SUTTA-NIPATA, Lord Chalmers, trans., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1932, METTA-SUTTA 143-151) Buddha also taught: "Hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule." and, "If someone curses you, you must repress all resentment." * In ancient Rome, the philosopher Seneca (who was a contemporary of Jesus, but probably never heard of him during his lifetime) wrote: "Does a man get angry? Do you on the contrary challenge him with kindness. Animosity, if abandoned by one side, forthwith dies...If someone strikes you, step back: for by striking back you will give him both the opportunity and the excuse to repeat his blow." (DE IRA II, 34) * The Stoic philosopher Epictetus (c 100 Ad) wrote in ancient Rome: "That which you would not suffer yourself, seek not to lay upon others." and, "Nothing is nobler than magnanimity, meekness, and philanthropy" (FRAGMENTS, xlvi) * Islam (which is younger than both Judaism and Christianity), also has its version of the Silver Rule: "Let none of you treat his brother in a way he himself would not like to be treated." (Mohammed, 6th century C.E.) Silver Rule in the Old Testament The ancient hebrews urged one to not harm others--and to even help one's enemies if they were in need of assistance: * In Lamentations 3:30, we are told, "Let him give his cheek to him that smiteth him". * Leviticus 19:18 states "Thou shalt not take vengeance." * In Exodus 23:4, we are told "If you meet your enemy's ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under ts burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up." * "If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Proverbs 25:21-2) * In the Talmud, the Jewish rabbi Hillel the Elder, (first century C.E.), succinctly summarized the entire Torah: "What is hateful to you", wrote the famous rabbi, "do not to your friend. This is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. Go forth and learn." Jesus' "GOLDEN" Rule The Golden Rule treats people from the POSITIVE--going beyond refraining from doing evil--to LOVING everyone as ourselves. An early version of the Golden Rule can be found in the famous Old Testament verse: "...you shall love your neighbor as yourself". (Leviticus 19:18) Still, this verse specifically refers to one's "NEIGHBORS", and could thus possibly EXCLUDE one's "enemies". Jesus expanded the scope of this moral rule to apply to EVERYONE: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even do to them." (Matthew 7:12) In addition to loving our enemies, Jesus' taught that NO resistance should be given to our enemies: "But I say to you that hear, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. TO HIM WHO STRIKES YOU ON THE CHEEK, OFFER THE OTHER ALSO; AND FROM HIM WHO TAKES AWAY YOUR CLOAK DO NOT WITHHOLD YOUR COAT AS WELL. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods, do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." (Luke 6:27-31, emphasis mine.) Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount, also demonstrates this PASSIVE element in loving one's enemies: "Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other also". (Matthew 5:39-40). Because of these and other sayings, Jesus is generally recognized as one of the great moral leaders in the world--by BOTH believers and non-believers! Application of Jesus' Moral Teachings towards Daily Living Throughout the centuries, thousands of monks and other religious individuals have dedicated their lives towards following the moral teachings of Jesus. St. Francis, for example gave all his possessions to the poor-- He subsequently became a poor man himself. As we saw earlier, Tolstoy interpreted the Golden Rule to mean that he could not even take up resistance--even against a robber or attacker in his home. It has been argued that it is next to impossible for an ENTIRE society to abide by a STRICT interpretation of the Golden Rule.--For in the real world, this would lead to the devout GIVING ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS TO THE NONRELIGIOUS! According to Paula Fredriksen, in her book FROM JESUS TO CHRIST: "No normal human society could long run according to the principles enunciated in the Sermon on the Mount; total passive non-resistance to evil--indeed, compliance with injustice--and an absolute refusal to judge would simply lead to the exploitation of those abiding by such rules by those who did not."(Paula Fredriksen, FROM JESUS TO CHRIST, p 100) A fairly modern example (as observed by Joseph McCabe in 1939), could be seen during the rise of Hitler's Germany before WWII: If Christians were to literally obey Jesus' moral precepts, then Western European and American leaders would have handed Hitler the province of Alsace-Lorraine-- and every thing else Hitler asked for, as well. A PASSIVE attitude towards evil, can thus lead people to accept the governments of evil tyrants in this world--instead of taking action against them. This has led some to question the moral implications of the passive stance within the Golden Rule. According to Carl Lofmark: "'Resist not evil' is the very opposite of morality: evil is precisely what we SHOULD try to resist. Most of us admire the few in Hitler's Germany who had the courage and integrity to resist the system more than we admire the many who meekly accepted evil and made themselves its slaves." Lofmark concluded, "The moral system which we have derived from the Bible often condemns us for doing bad things, but does not so often encourage us to do good or condemn us for failing to do the good which we might have done. Yet moral weakness so often consists in failing to help, studiously minding our own business, in situations where we know we ought to intervene. A balanced moral system might give equal weight to condemning our bad behaviour and requiring us positively to do good." Confuscious' Solution Regarding the Problem of Evil Interestingly, ancient Chinese philosophers considered the same problem of how to respond to evil some FIVE HUNDRED years before Jesus. Confucious' answer had a different twist from the Golden Rule: "If you requite evil with good, with what will you reward good? No, I say, reward good with good, and evil with justice." (Ibid). Although Confucious' reply is not generally given the same MORAL status as Jesus' Golden rule--upon reflection one will see that Confucious' rule is the one being PRACTICALLY applied by most civilized societies today. That is, most humane societies today are generous to others where possible--but criminals who commit physical violence are punished, according to laws which are deemed to be just and fair. Gandhi's "Passive" Response to Evil A different interpretation of the Golden Rule is of course possible-- Whereby one stands up to evil, while still in a NON-violent (PASSIVE) manner. The most famous individual who employed this technique was not a Christian, but a Hindu named Mohandas K. Gandhi. Although previously turned off by Christian missionaries during his stay in South Africa, Gandhi had become acquainted with Jesus' moral teachings through the writings of the Russian author Tolstoy. Tolstoy's writings stressed the beauty and power going back to Jesus' original messages of love and non-violence in his Sermon on the Mount. Reflecting on Tolstoy's book THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU, Gandhi wrote, how this book "overwhelmed me. It left an abiding impression on me. Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all [other Christian]... books...seemed to pale in insignificance." So impressed was Gandhi with Jesus' moral teachings of non-violence, that he used this model as the basis for resisting English rule in his movement to gain independence for India. Millions of Indians followed Gandi's PASSIVE revolution, and eventually gained their independence from British rule. Gandhi never became a Christian himself. He summed up his feelings for Jesus and Christianity at another time as follows: "I like Christ, but I dislike Christians because they are so very unlike Christ." Although Gandhi's passive tactics worked against Britain, it is a matter of debate whether this would have also been effective against a ruthless enemy (such as Nazi Germans or Stalinist Russians). That is, it is questionable if passive resistance would have worked against an authoritarian-minded enemy, who had a total lack of regard for human rights. An interesting parallel can be drawn with the black civil rights movement in the United States. The reverend Martin Luther King (a devout Christian), used both Jesus' model of non-violence (and to a lesser degree Gandhi's example) to stand up to the deep-seated racial prejudice in America in the middle twentieth century. Although King's eloquent stand for non-violence gained him a tremendous amount of international respect, it may be questioned whether civil rights advances of the 1960's would have been as successful, without (1) the threat of violent riots by OTHER black groups, and (2) an important base of liberal white support groups that pushed for compromise. (Black American groups today, point out that the gap in opportunities between blacks and whites is still large--although most people acknowledge King's leadership in improving black rights within American society.) Jesus Not Applying the Golden Rule Towards "Spiritual" Enemies There are some gospel sayings, that clearly show that Jesus did not always take a passive stance himself. For example in Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus says: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39) In Luke 14:26, Jesus reportedly says: "He who does not hate his father, mother, sister, and brothers, wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Jesus also expressed great anger towards his opponents at times. For example, Matthew records the following lines from an obviously ANGRY Jesus: "You are like tombs covered with whitewash; they look well from outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth... You snakes, you vipers; brood, how can you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:27-33) Here, Jesus' anger was primarily directed at his SPIRITUAL opponents-- That is, his enemies (identified in the gospels as the Jewish scribes and Pharisees) who were too egotistical and blind to accept Jesus' mission. Because of these scenes, some historical scholars believe that Jesus' doctrine of "turning the other cheek" and universal love were founded NOT on a basis of "mildness", but instead resulted from a belief in the irrelevancy of this world as compared to the superior world order that was about to be established by God. (Michael Grant: JESUS, AN HISTORIAN'S REVIEW OF THE GOSPELS, p 76) It is interesting, for example to contrast Jesus with Socrates. According to the accounts left by Plato, Socrates never showed any emotional anger with those who disagreed with him, or refused to listen to him. Instead he always maintained a calm composure in all his daily conversations. Problem of Interpretation--What Does the Golden Rule Really Mean? As noted earlier, one problem with the Golden Rule is that there is no perfectly clear definition as to what it means in all situations. Thus, individuals have interpreted it differently--often according to their own personal convictions and biases. One of the more interesting (and honest) personal reflections on the "true" meaning of the Golden Rule, can be found in C.S. Lewis' THE BUSINESS OF HEAVEN. An excerpt from Lewis is included below. Notice, how he reads and re-reads the Bible in an attempt to understand the underlying moral lesson: "Try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself? Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbour' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do...but that is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner." (C.S. Lewis, "The Business of Heaven--Loving and Liking, "THE INSPIRATIONAL WRITING SO C.S. LEWIS, Inspirational Press, New York, NY, 1987, p 339-40). Unfortunately, Lewis did not consider for us, how other individuals might project their own feelings differently than him--say, for example, a religious Inquisitor, who might interpret the Golden Rule to allow him to torture others for the "good" of the faith. How the Golden Rule was "Twisted" to Allow Tortures, Slavery, and Religious Wars When Orthodox Christians came into power in the Roman Empire during the fourth century C.E., a controversy arose among Christians as to whether the Golden Rule allowed them to go to war against the barbarian enemy.--For a LITERAL interpretation of the Golden Rule, would seem to imply that good Christians should not take up arms against ANY enemy. Orthodox Christians were thus anxious to find an interpretation that would assure the devout that it was not sinful to take up arms to go to war. St. Augustine of Hippo (late fourth century C.E.) writings were heavily relied on to justify aggression against an "Enemy". According to Augustine's doctrine of original sin, there was a need for a strong authoritarian power (interpreted to mean both religious AND secular leaders) to control corrupted, evil humans. St. Augustine reconciled his view with the Golden Rule-- by interpreting the Golden Rule along a SPIRITUAL plane, so that it was no longer relevant towards our affairs on EARTH! A "just" war could and should be waged by Christian authorities against a recognizable evil. St Augustine's reinterpretation of the Golden Rule was based on the following rational argument: Because our EARTHLY lives are INSIGNIFICANT when compared to eternal life in HEAVEN, then there could be no loftier deed that we could want others to do for us, than to SAVE OUR ETERNAL SOUL. From this reasoning, it follows that the act of saving souls is so important, that it SUPERCEDES EVERYTHING ELSE! Inhumane actions such as wars and even torture could thus be reconciled to the Golden Rule, because of the necessity of maintaining a strong Christian society under the leadership of a powerful Church-- whose primary goal was to save souls for heaven. Using this interpretation, persecution could now be defined as a "righteous" act--performed out of "love" for the soul of the heretic. By shifting the struggle of human existence from the realm of politics on earth, to the spiritual realm in heaven--the "enemy" was redefined as well. That is, the "enemy" was no longer viewed along a political "barbarian" vs "civilized" Roman dichotomy--but instead along religious lines-- between "BELIEVERS" and "NONBELIEVERS" of Orthodox ("correct") Christian doctrine. In this way, St. Augustine's arguments were also applied to clamp down on proclaimed "heretics" (ie, including Christians that "strayed" from Catholic orthodoxy). Christian force was justified as "righteous persecution" that was necessary, in order to prevent heresy from spreading, and thus diseasing other "saved" souls. Augustine used the analogy of amputating the rotten limb in order to save the body.--The rotten limb was understood as the "heretic" and the body as "the Church". Augustine concluded from his analysis, that the righteous persecution of heretics was nothing less than a "work of mercy to which we ought to apply ourselves." St. Augustine naturally saw no conflict with this interpretation, and Jesus' Golden Rule. According to Augustine, when motivated by love, persecutors cannot do evil; "Love and you cannot but do well." Comparison of the Golden Rule with the Silver Rule One important reason (not mentioned before now) why St. Augustine and others were able to interpret the Golden Rule along this new spiritual plane is because the Golden Rule speaks in terms of the believer doing what s/he feels is "best" for the other person. In other words, the Golden Rule does NOT state: "Do unto others as THEY [ie, the other people] would like", Instead, the Golden Rule states: "Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU." (emphasis mine.) Thus, the person who JUDGES what is "good" for the individual is the believer, and NOT the other person. Assuming the believer has a good moral framework, this should not make much difference.--That is, the rule would NOT be interpreted as taking an INHUMANE action against another--such as torturing, killing, raping, or enslaving--under the pretense of "loving" these individuals. However, real life experience has shown that one CANNOT ASSUME everyone to have a good basis of morals! And such an individual can conceivably PERVERT the Golden Rule by claiming that they are acting towards others as they themselves would "like" to be treated. Examples would include a masochist who feels empowered by the Golden Rule to hurt others, (ie, because s/he himself wants to be inflicted with pain); a sex offender who wants to sexually abuse others (again because s/he wants to be so abused), and a religious zealot who believes s/he would rather die if they felt they were straying from their "perfect" dogma. Because there are OTHER explicit laws in the form of the Ten Commandments, believers are prevented from interpreting the Golden rule along lines of sodomy, theft, etc. However, THERE ARE NO EXPLICIT OLD OR NEW TESTAMENT LAWS DIRECTLY FORBIDDING TORTURE, SLAVERY, POGRAMS, AND WARS! Therefore, these latter items (ie torture, slavery, etc) could RATIONALLY be justifiable acts under the Golden Rule--IF(?) defined in such a way that the believer is inflicting these out of "love" for the eternal souls of others. This discussion is no mere exercise in logic, because during the Dark Ages, Catholic Inquisitors tortured and burned heretics after interpreting the Golden Rule in just this way! Thus, because there are NO biblical verses directly FORBIDDING inhumane actions such as torture and slavery, St. Augustine was able to effectively SHORT-CIRCUIT the basic message of the Golden Rule. In the process, the SILVER Rule--which outright forbade individuals to take action which could harm others (and was therefore more difficult to twist using spiritual metaphors)-- was ALSO abandoned. The result was that under this "interpretation" of the Golden Rule, others could now be harmed--although persecutors could claim this was a "loving" action, and divinely sanctioned by God. In contrast to the Golden Rule, the Silver rule speaks in terms of FORBIDDING harmful actions against others: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." The difference is that the Silver Rule, in itself, gives NO MORAL justification for taking ANY actions against our neighbor. Therefore, in testing how the Silver Rule could be interpreted by a person with a perverted or inhumane system of morals (such as a masochist, sex offender, Inquisitor, or slaveholder), it can be seen that the Silver Rule gives an individual no moral justification for taking any action against another person. Instead the focus for the believer, is to morally prevent him/her from taking any HARMFUL action against the individual. This is unlike the Golden Rule which divinely EMPOWERS the believer to perform "loving" acts against all others. Of course in the hands of an ideologue, even the Silver Rule can be perverted to allow for the harm of others--unless such action is explicitly forbidden--say inhumane actions such as torture or slavery. (Footnote: An interesting exercise is to take the viewpoint of a religious Inquisitor who believes that he would rather DIE than hold heretical views. Taking the Silver Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you", this religious fanatic could take the position that a PASSIVE stance (ie doing nothing) is something he would NOT want for himself! Therefore, arguably, even the Silver Rule could be interpreted by an Inquisitor to kill and torture others--because NOT taking these actions is something he wouldn't want others to take against him. Notice how the Silver Rule has to switch to NOT wanting PASSIVE actions-- a double negative--in order to justify taking any moral action. This would seem more difficult to justify. Still, if a religious fanatic is determined to justify inhumane actions against others, even this probably would not suffice to change their actions. And even a more "rational" minded individual might not object unless s/he also espoused humanistic ideals. end of footnote) Possibly Buddha's exhortation to love another--as a mother would tend to her only son--would be a better interpretation of the Golden Rule. For it would be difficult to argue that a mother would allow even a "sinful" child, to be tortured or enslaved for his or her own "good". Problem of Applying the Golden and the Silver Rule Against an Evil Aggressor When there is an aggressor with no regard for human rights, individuals who apply the Silver Rule are in the same predicament as those who abide by the Golden Rule. For example, take the situation again where Hitler's Nazis attempted to violently force their ideology of Aryan superiority onto the rest of the world. Technically speaking, the application of the Silver or Golden Rule would seem to urge believers against taking ANY violent action against the Nazis--because no one wants violent actions to be used on them. As mentioned above, some theologians have attempted to "solve" this dilemma, by arguing that the Golden/Silver rules simply do NOT apply in the situation of an aggressive external enemy! This is consistent with the reading of the Golden Rule by the ancient hebrews--It will be recalled that their version of the golden rule applied only to one's "neighbor". They also have no version of a moral rule telling them to be passive in the presence of evil--such as Matthew 5:39 which states "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also". Some Christian scholars argued that Matthew 5:39 does NOT apply towards fighting an enemy country. For example, C.S. Lewis argued that this verse did NOT apply towards fighting the Nazis during WW II. Instead, Lewis claimed that this verse applied ONLY towards individual behavior against personal anger-- and NOT against fighting a just and necessary war! Can the Golden Rule Make Us "Arrogant"?-- Reflections by Albert Schweitzer on the Golden Rule and Christian Ethics: According to the humanitarian doctor, Albert Schweitzer, "we cannot escape it if we would be truthful: The Christian ethic has never become a power in the world. It has not sunk deep into the minds of men. It has been accepted only superficially, acknowledged in theory more than put into practice. Mankind behaves as if the teaching of Jesus did not exist, as if Christian behavior has no ethical principles at all." Schweitzer suggested that Christian ethical behavior is flawed by its emphasis on receiving heavenly rewards for good behavior. Jesus' moral teachings stress poverty, renunciation, and abandonment of friends and family (see Luke 14:26). The future reward for such humility and faithfulness will be power, majesty, and authority-- essentially a reward for everything renounced, multiplied by a thousandfold. (see Matthew 19:29) Schweitzer argued that Christian morality can "make us arrogant": "If we forgive our enemies, we think we are being virtuous. If we help a man who needs our assistance, we consider ourselves very noble indeed. We perform small acts of goodness possibly in the name of Christ, considering our deeds somehow different and better than those of other men. Thus we acquire a superior and complacent attitude which actually makes us more unethical than those who do not acknowledge the commandments of Jesus or try to live up to them..." "Let us study men around us ... Why are even the most devout among them, and often the pious in particular, capable of being swept by prejudice and passions of nationalism into judgments and courses of action entirely void of ethical truth? Because they lack an ethic based on reason and rooted in logic. Because they do not regard ethics as a natural endowment or as part of their faculty of reason." "Reason and heart must act together if a true morality is to be established. ...We need not fear that an ethic based on reason is geared too low, that it may be too detached and heartless. For when reason really reaches the core of the matter it ceases to be cold reason, whether it wants to or not, and begins to speak with the melody of the heart. " (See Section X, Chapter 5 on Albert Schweitzer.) C.S. Lewis' Response to Whether the Promise of Reward Makes "the Christian Life a Mercenary Affair" Schweitzer's view that Christian ethical behavior is "flawed" by its emphasis on receiving heavenly rewards for good behavior is, of course, challenged by religious writers. C.S. Lewis response was that one does NOT have to be a "mercenary" to desire the reward of a future life in heaven: "We must not be troubled by unbelievers when they say that this promise of reward makes the Christian life a mercenary affair. There are different kinds of reward...Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man a mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money. "But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not mercenary for desiring it. A general who fights well in order to get a peerage is mercenary; a general who fights for victory is not, victory being the proper reward of battle as marriage is the proper reward of love. The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but are the activity itself in consummation...An enjoyment of Greek poetry is certainly a proper, and not a mercenary, reward of learning Greek...The schoolboy beginning Greek grammar cannot look forward to his adult enjoyment of Sophocles as a lover looks forward to marriage or a general to victory...But it is just in so far as he approaches the reward that he becomes able to desire it for its own sake; indeed, the power of so desiring it is itself a preliminary reward. "The Christian in relation to Heaven, is in much the same position... Those who have attained everlasting life in the vision of God doubtless know very well that it is no mere bribe, but the very consummation of their earthly discipleship; but we who have not yet attained it cannot know this in the same way, and cannot even begin to know it at all except by continuing to obey and finding the first reward of our obedience in our increasing power to desire the ultimate reward. Just in proportion as the desire grows, our fear lest it should be a mercenary desire will die away and finally be recognized as an absurdity. But probably this will not, for most of us, happen in a day; poetry replaces grammar, Grammar replaces Law, longing transforms obedience, as gradually as the tide lifts a grounded ship." (C.S. Lewis, "The Business of Heaven--Hope, "THE INSPIRATIONAL WRITING SO C.S. LEWIS, Inspirational Press, New York, NY, 1987, p 338-9). Schweitzer might, of course, counter that a romantic love relationship (using C.S. Lewis' imagery) is NOT typically meaningful nor lasting-- IF based solely on emotion/passion. Instead, for the relationship to be mature--then reason and compassion must also be present! The question then is whether religion assists the individual towards the attainment of this goal-- or to phrase this another way, whether religion makes us a "better" individual? This complex topic will be taken up next-- and examined via a number of different perspectives.