What is Man? and Other Essays. Mark Twain

which are the servants of their Interior Masters. It is quite likely that a part of your mother's forbearance came from training. The GOOD kind of training – whose best and highest function is to see to it that every time it confers a satisfaction upon its pupil a benefit shall fall at second hand upon others.

      Y.M. If you were going to condense into an admonition your plan for the general betterment of the race's condition, how would you word it?

      O.M. Diligently train your ideals UPWARD and STILL UPWARD toward a summit where you will find your chiefest pleasure in conduct which, while contenting you, will be sure to confer benefits upon your neighbor and the community.

      Y.M. Is that a new gospel?

      O.M. No.

      Y.M. It has been taught before?

      O.M. For ten thousand years.

      Y.M. By whom?

      O.M. All the great religions – all the great gospels.

      Y.M. Then there is nothing new about it?

      O.M. Oh yes, there is. It is candidly stated, this time. That has not been done before.

      Y.M. How do you mean?

      O.M. Haven't I put YOU FIRST, and your neighbor and the community AFTERWARD?

      Y.M. Well, yes, that is a difference, it is true.

      O.M. The difference between straight speaking and crooked; the difference between frankness and shuffling.

      Y.M. Explain.

      O.M. The others offer your a hundred bribes to be good, thus conceding that the Master inside of you must be conciliated and contented first, and that you will do nothing at FIRST HAND but for his sake; then they turn square around and require you to do good for OTHER'S sake CHIEFLY; and to do your duty for duty's SAKE, chiefly; and to do acts of SELF-SACRIFICE. Thus at the outset we all stand upon the same ground – recognition of the supreme and absolute Monarch that resides in man, and we all grovel before him and appeal to him; then those others dodge and shuffle, and face around and unfrankly and inconsistently and illogically change the form of their appeal and direct its persuasions to man's SECOND-PLACE powers and to powers which have NO EXISTENCE in him, thus advancing them to FIRST place; whereas in my Admonition I stick logically and consistently to the original position: I place the Interior Master's requirements FIRST, and keep them there.

      Y.M. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that your scheme and the other schemes aim at and produce the same result – RIGHT LIVING – has yours an advantage over the others?

      O.M. One, yes – a large one. It has no concealments, no deceptions. When a man leads a right and valuable life under it he is not deceived as to the REAL chief motive which impels him to it – in those other cases he is.

      Y.M. Is that an advantage? Is it an advantage to live a lofty life for a mean reason? In the other cases he lives the lofty life under the IMPRESSION that he is living for a lofty reason. Is not that an advantage?

      O.M. Perhaps so. The same advantage he might get out of thinking himself a duke, and living a duke's life and parading in ducal fuss and feathers, when he wasn't a duke at all, and could find it out if he would only examine the herald's records.

      Y.M. But anyway, he is obliged to do a duke's part; he puts his hand in his pocket and does his benevolences on as big a scale as he can stand, and that benefits the community.

      O.M. He could do that without being a duke.

      Y.M. But would he?

      O.M. Don't you see where you are arriving?

      Y.M. Where?

      O.M. At the standpoint of the other schemes: That it is good morals to let an ignorant duke do showy benevolences for his pride's sake, a pretty low motive, and go on doing them unwarned, lest if he were made acquainted with the actual motive which prompted them he might shut up his purse and cease to be good?

      Y.M. But isn't it best to leave him in ignorance, as long as he THINKS he is doing good for others' sake?

      O.M. Perhaps so. It is the position of the other schemes. They think humbug is good enough morals when the dividend on it is good deeds and handsome conduct.

      Y.M. It is my opinion that under your scheme of a man's doing a good deed for his OWN sake first-off, instead of first for the GOOD DEED'S sake, no man would ever do one.

      O.M. Have you committed a benevolence lately?

      Y.M. Yes. This morning.

      O.M. Give the particulars.

      Y.M. The cabin of the old negro woman who used to nurse me when I was a child and who saved my life once at the risk of her own, was burned last night, and she came mourning this morning, and pleading for money to build another one.

      O.M. You furnished it?

      Y.M. Certainly.

      O.M. You were glad you had the money?

      Y.M. Money? I hadn't. I sold my horse.

      O.M. You were glad you had the horse?

      Y.M. Of course I was; for if I hadn't had the horse I should have been incapable, and my MOTHER would have captured the chance to set old Sally up.

      O.M. You were cordially glad you were not caught out and incapable?

      Y.M. Oh, I just was!

      O.M. Now, then—

      Y.M. Stop where you are! I know your whole catalog of questions, and I could answer every one of them without your wasting the time to ask them; but I will summarize the whole thing in a single remark: I did the charity knowing it was because the act would give ME a splendid pleasure, and because old Sally's moving gratitude and delight would give ME another one; and because the reflection that she would be happy now and out of her trouble would fill ME full of happiness. I did the whole thing with my eyes open and recognizing and realizing that I was looking out for MY share of the profits FIRST. Now then, I have confessed. Go on.

      O.M. I haven't anything to offer; you have covered the whole ground. Can you have been any MORE strongly moved to help Sally out of her trouble – could you have done the deed any more eagerly – if you had been under the delusion that you were doing it for HER sake and profit only?

      Y.M. No! Nothing in the world could have made the impulse which moved me more powerful, more masterful, more thoroughly irresistible. I played the limit!

      O.M. Very well. You begin to suspect – and I claim to KNOW – that when a man is a shade MORE STRONGLY MOVED to do ONE of two things or of two dozen things than he is to do any one of the OTHERS, he will infallibly do that ONE thing, be it good or be it evil; and if it be good, not all the beguilements of all the casuistries can increase the strength of the impulse by a single shade or add a shade to the comfort and contentment he will get out of the act.

      Y.M. Then you believe that such tendency toward doing good as is in men's hearts would not be diminished by the removal of the delusion that good deeds are done primarily for the sake of No. 2 instead of for the sake of No. 1?

      O.M. That is what I fully believe.

      Y.M. Doesn't it somehow seem to take from the dignity of the deed?

      O.M. If there is dignity in falsity, it does. It removes that.

      Y.M. What is left for the moralists to do?

      O.M. Teach unreservedly what he already teaches with one side of his mouth and takes back with the other: Do right FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, and be happy in knowing that your NEIGHBOR will certainly share in the benefits resulting.

      Y.M. Repeat your Admonition.

      O.M. DILIGENTLY TRAIN YOUR IDEALS UPWARD AND STILL UPWARD TOWARD A SUMMIT WHERE YOU WILL FIND YOUR CHIEFEST PLEASURE IN CONDUCT WHICH, WHILE CONTENTING YOU, WILL BE SURE TO CONFER BENEFITS UPON YOUR NEIGHBOR AND THE COMMUNITY.

      Y.M. One's EVERY act proceeds from EXTERIOR INFLUENCES, you think?

      O.M. Yes.

      Y.M. If I conclude to rob a person, I am not the ORIGINATOR of the idea, but it comes in from the OUTSIDE? I see him handling money