There is an illusion in society that honesty and good behaviour must of necessity be qualities gained from religion. Repeatedly we hear calls for the teaching of religion to combat rising crime. While still a teenager I had an argument with my mother over this. She called truthfulness and honesty Christian ethics. I contended that they were good social behaviour and had nothing to do with religion. What would happen if I ceased being a Christian, would I lose all ethical convictions? Many, like my mother, confuse ethical standards with their religious beliefs.

I wish to contest the idea that religion is the author or indeed the chief propagator of ethical standards. Ethics, community cooperation, loyalties and trustworthiness are social imperatives which must have been developed in prehistoric times. Otherwise human beings could not have become a social community. I do not include sexual behaviour, which has different codes and standards from one society to another. On most occasions I have used the word ethics rather than morals because the word morals is too firmly associated with sexual behaviour in the minds of many people. Both words have a wider meaning and have to do with honourable human behaviour.

Trustworthiness, honesty, dependability, justice, loyalty and compassion are social lubricants and necessary ingredients in all human concourse and cooperation. The archaeologist Richard E. Leakey put it clearly in his book "Origins", he says,

"Above all else we human beings are social animals, emotionally we need to be part of a group, and intellectually we are equipped to understand and manipulate interaction with other people, whether parochially as in personal relations or politically."

For the early human race, social interaction would have been necessary for survival. Only by working with their fellows could emerging humanity have achieved the huge steps toward civilization. There must always have been mechanisms or codes of behaviour to resolve disagreements, or deal with family privileges, rights of possession and responsibilities. Indeed all social animals, including chimpanzees and wild dogs, have understood codes of behaviour. The prehistoric human animal would not have been an exception.

Perhaps the best known ethic is the golden rule spoken by Jesus: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matt. 7:12). Many believe that the golden rule is unique to Christianity and epitomises its teaching. The saying is by no means unique to Christianity. It is a piece of folk wisdom often repeated since it was first recorded in 600 B.C. The same sentiment was expressed by at least six other world philosophers who lived many years before Christ.

Zoroastrianism, the Persian national religion which still has a following in Northern India, taught, "Do not do unto others all that is not well for yourself." Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, was born in 551 BC. and died 72 years later. He taught the "wisdom of the ancients". He said, "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Buddha, the sixth century B.C. founder of the very live oriental faith of today, taught "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself." Jainism, a religion similar to Buddhism founded in the sixth century B.C. preached "In happiness or suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Plato, the Greek philosopher of the fourth century B.C. said "May I do to others as I would they should do unto me." Mahabharato, third century B.C. said "do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain."

Ethics in Ancient Texts Before Christ

The Sermon on the Mount is supposed to convey the essence of the teaching of Jesus. In it he says, "If any man will sue thee in the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh from thee and from him that would borrow from thee, turn not away" (Matt. 6:40-42). The same goodwill and generosity was expressed in ancient Egyptian manuscripts. "If a poor man owes you debts, divide them in three and give up two parts of them, you will find that such are the ways of life, to be praised as a friend of men is worth more than riches in store." The injunction to return good for evil was apparently popular in China

five hundred years before Christ. Someone asked Confucius, "How do you regard the principle of returning good for evil?" The master replied, "What then is to be returned for good? Rather should you return justice for injustice and good for good." I like the Confucian solution. It is rational and practical and yet retains the essential goodwill.

There are some excellent books on ancient religions which are highly recommended. A few are "Religions of the World" gen. editor Geoffrey Par-rinder, "Religion in Ancient History" S.G.F. Bran-don, "The Sayings of Confucius" Lionel Giles, "History of World Religions" Catherine Savage, "Comparative Religion, a History" Eric Sharpe, "The Religious Experiences of Mankind" Ninian Smart. I am grateful for the information which they and other books supply.

The Greek historian Herodotus asserted that the Egyptians considered themselves the most ancient people on earth. Indeed no nation on earth has a better written ancient history. It stretches back almost to the dawn of the art of writing. Among the excavated texts are ethical precepts from different periods of Egyptian history. Some of the sayings are:

"Do right as long as you live on earth, comfort the weeping, offend not the widow, deprive not a man of his inheritance." "Do not be angry, it is good to be friendly." "The good conduct of a righteous man is more welcome than an ox sacrificed by a wrong doer." "A good man proves himself if he goes by that which is right, by so doing he will gather riches." "The courageous man who does not give in to his whims, will be master of himself and master of his

afairs" "Love your wife in your house-she is a ?ield the tilling of which brings rewards to him who has her." "Goodly speech is rarer than turquoise, yet it may be found with the servant girl at the grindstone."

Egyptian religion from earliest times was obsessed with the idea of ensuring the well-being of its nobility in an after-life. Deceased Pharaohs and the court elite were embalmed and buried in tombs with written records of their personal achievements. One of interest to us, dated before 2000 B.C., is an inscription on the tomb of a famous Egyptian official, Harkhuf, who was an explorer of the Sudan. It reads "I gave bread to the hungry, clothes to the naked. I was one saying good things and repeating what was loved. Never did I say aught evil to a powerful one or against anybody. I desired that it might be well with me in the Great Gods presence. Never did I judge two brothers in such a way that a son was deprived of his paternal possessions." This is the earliest certain association of a deity with moral behaviour.

Inscribed on the tomb of Nefer-sekhem is another claim of a court official. "I judge the cases of two partners until they are satisfied, I rescue the wretched from one who is more powerful than he. In so far as I am able, I give bread to the hungry, clothes to the naked. I brought the stranded man to land. I buried him who had no son. I made a boat for him who had no boat. I feared my father. I was gracious to my mother."

Spoken or tribal laws of behaviour have undoubtedly been in force since human beings first became social creatures. Ethical codes have been written intothe laws of many countries hundreds of years B.C. Hammurabi was the king of Babylon from 1792 to 1750 B.C. He is most famous for the written legal code used throughout his kingdom. It is inscribed on a stone stela over two metres tall and now preserved in the Louvre in Paris. The top portion of one side in bas-relief, shows the king standing in an attitude of prayer before the seated sun god, Samash, the god of justice, and receiving laws for the kingdom.

The Hammurabi laws constituted a remarkable framework of social order and dealt, among other things, with the administration of justice in matters such as murder, adultery, false witness and offences against the person and property. The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us, "The code has advanced far beyond tribal custom and recognises no blood feud, private retribution, or marriage by capture-There is a regular postal service. The position of women is free and dignified." What the Hammurabi code did, was to clarify social and individual rights. It established compensation and punishments for injustices and thereby made possible a secure and orderly community.

The Hammurabi code predated the Ten Commandments by several hundred years and may well have been the inspiration for the famous Jewish laws. But even Hammurabi's law code was not the first written law. Part of a law code predating it by more than three hundred years has been found on a cuneiform tablet. Both the Assyrian and the Hittite nations had written laws by the 13th century B.C. That the Hebrew nation, many years later, had the written Moasic law of ten commandments was not surprising What is significant is that they claim, like Hammurabi, that the law was given to them bytheir god.

Let us look at some of the great ethical philosophies which have strongly influenced world thinking Taoism, which originated about the sixth century B.C. had this to say: "Only he that pities is truly able to be brave. Only he that is frugal is able to be profuse. Only he that refuses to be foremost in all things is truly able to become chief of all ministers." Taoism teaches that human beings should treasure love, moderation and humility above all things.

Zoroaster was the founder of the ancient Iranian national religion in the early sixth century B.C., or perhaps much earlier. (Scholars cannot agree on the most likely date). The religion was based on an old Iranian myth concerning good and evil. The god Yurvan desired a son. It transpired that twins were born, Ormazd, who was radiant and represented all that was good and beautiful, and Ahriman, who was dark and repulsive and represented all that was ugly and evil. "Now the two primal spirits who revealed themselves in vision as twins, are the better and the bad in thought and word and action. And between these two, the wise choose aright and the foolish not so. And when the twain spirits came together in the beginning, they established Life and Not Life. And at the last the worst existence shall be to the followers of the Lie. But the best thought to him that follows Right. Of these twain spirits, he that follows the Lie chooses the worst things. The holiest spirit chooses Right."

In the god Ahura, Zoroaster concentrated the whole of the divine character, the primeval spiritual being, the All-father who existed before the world began. He taught that there was a cosmic struggle between the supreme good spirit, Ormazd, and the opposing evil spirit, Ahriman. He believed that by the confession of faith, by every good deed, word and thought, by continually keeping pure his body and his soul, man impairs the power of evil and strengthens the might of goodness. The essence of the one is truth and law, the essence of the other falsehood. His ethical code required his followers to ask themselves each evening, "In what have I failed? What good have I done? What have I done that I ought not to have done?".

Gautama Buddha was a son of a ruling Indian noble. At the age of 29 he gave up a life of luxury and sought peace through religious teaching. Unsatisfied with the orthodox religion of the day, he finally gained his own great enlightenment through quiet meditation. He concluded that the cause of suffering was craving and ignorance. He then discovered the eightfold path to its removal: right views, right intentions, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

Feeling compassion for all suffering humanity, he decided to devote his life to sharing his discovery. For the rest of his long life he became a wandering teacher. From his numerous followers he organized a community of monks to carry on after him. From this organization grew Buddhism, one of the greatest and most influential forces for peace; it has permeated the Orient for over two and a half thousand years.

Buddhism in its early stages was concerned with right living and mental attitudes. The emphasis of his teaching was directed towards relieving suffering in this life. As it was originally presented. Buddhism was not concerned with the manipulation of spirit beings, but with the manner of living in the here and now.

Confucius, born in China 12 years after Buddha was born in India, also taught a philosophy of ethical behaviour. He gave no teaching regarding life after death. His disciples said that "the master did not speak of the will of heaven". He repudiated belief in spirits as irrational and unnatural, but he did believe and teach that sincerity, goodwill, love and virtue are necessary for social and personal good.

Confucius championed and got inspiration from the older "Book of Songs" and "The Book of Documents" relating to the ideas of government of the Chou dynasty of the llth century B.C. Confucius created concepts for a model kingship of justice and dignity. The word "Te" meant the magical force of virtue and personal prestige in an ethical sense. The word "Li" meant a code of honourable and just behaviour. Persons in power were encouraged to rule by the forces of dignity, justice, wisdom and example. The power that virtue exerts became the force of example which automatically converted good into an irresistible force. Brutal domination by force alone was considered the antithesis of "Te". Thus true statesmanship and the rule of force were opposites.

Confucius taught that unless family life was governed by "jen" (variously interpreted as love, goodness, loyalty, and courtesy) the family unit would break down. "Jen" became the greatest virtue and the epitome of all virtue. To him the basis of social order was the special love a person had for the family. Asked if there was one word which might act as a principle of conduct for all of life, he said "Maybe the word is consideration; do not to others what you would not desire them to do to you."

Some of Confucius' sayings are worthy of our attention. "A gentleman, in his dealings with the world, is prejudiced neither for nor against, he simply seeks accord with righteousness.... To apprehend what is righteous, and not to do it, is cowardice.... A gentleman puts righteousness above everything....if a common man possesses courage but lacks righteousness he will become a thief.... A noble character is never prepared to part with goodness.... When the "Way" prevails in your land, count it a disgrace to be needy and obscure. When the "Way" does not prevail, count it a disgrace to be rich and honoured.... All men are born good.... True goodness springs from a man's own heart.... Only he who has the spirit of goodness within him is really able to love.... Virtue cannot live in solitude, neighbours are sure to grow up around it". Speaking of a virtuous person, he said, "He should be circumspect but truthful. He should have charity in his heart for all

men.... Make conscientiousness and truth your guiding principle."

It was the ethical behaviour within the community which was Confucius' pervading concern. Love for others resulted in loyalty of considerable strength in family and social relationships.

Confucius ushered in the age of the Chinese philosophers which lasted from the 6th to the 3rd century B.C. The influence of his thinking and that of his disciples has profoundly affected Chinese thought for two and a half thousand years. One of Confucius' most important disciples, two hundred years later, was Mencius. He taught that all people were born good and that we became less than good through the pressures and evil to which we become subjected.

This is contrary to Christian thought, which teaches that we are innately evil and are "born in sin and shapen in iniquity", and can only be saved by belief in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Unfortunately we have been indoctrinated so heavily with negative Christian attitudes of innate sin and punishment that we have come to expect the worst from each other. We have not given nearly enough thought to the positive approach advocated by Confucius and many other philosophers.

We cannot leave out of this chapter the considerable contribution of the Greek philosophers. Socrates never wrote a book in his life, yet his teaching and search for knowledge sparked off an amazing burst of philosophical writing and thought such as the world has seldom seen. His influence through Plato, Aristotle and others, extended over hundreds of years of Greek history. Socrates' disciples recorded his sayings and their own words of wisdom, which continue to challenge us today.

When an old man, Socrates became the victim of religious intolerance and was condemned to death for denying the gods whom the city worshipped and for misleading the youth of the city. He could have escaped if he had used the plea his friends had arranged or had his sentence reduced if he had promised to give up his teaching. Here is part of his speech to the Athenians while he was waiting for death. "The thing to try for, my friends, is not to avoid death but to avoid unrighteousness for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly and a slower runner has overtaken me. My accusers are keen and quick and a faster runner which is unrighteousness has overtaken them. And now I go hence to my penalty of death; they go condemned by the truth to the penalty of having done a wicked thing."

Plato recorded the teaching of Socrates and blended in his own philosophy. Plato's main concern for people was that they should develop rational moral characters. He believed that if a human being knew what was absolutely good, that person would not be content with anything less. For Plato, all virtue was knowledge and all wrong doing was ignorance of virtue. To live morally and justly was to live in spiritual health. To live immorally and unjustly was to be spiritually diseased.

Aristotle was a student of Plato as Plato had been a student of Socrates. The Greek philosophers were desirous of finding the supreme good. The final analysis seems to be that the supreme good is achieved in a world in which all rational beings are happy and are worthy of happiness. Aristotle gave support to the older proverb that "all virtue is summed up in dealing justly". He talked about equality, courage, friendships, habits and happiness, also such basic human feelings as fear, anger, desire and flattery. The scope of his knowledge and his understanding of society were tremendous. One of my favourite sayings of Aristotle is "It is only between those who are good and resemble one another in their goodness that friendship is perfect." What Aristotle is saying is that the best friendships occur in an atmosphere where there is no conflict on ethical issues. The philosophers we have looked at did not consider themselves to be messengers sent from god. They were stating what they believed to be noble human standards or ethics.

I have picked some examples out of history to show that the understanding of ethics has been live and well since long before Christ's time. Written and spoken philosophies of how best to live, go further and further back until lost in the mists of earliest tradition and prehistoric myth. In no way can the teachings of Jesus claim to be original or offer a better philosophy than had already been presented. Indeed, anything of value he did say about the ideal way of living was folk wisdom which had been collected and passed down throughout bygone ages. Of course, there is another side to early history which is full of injustice, cruelty, greed and the inhumanity of human to human. I see the emphasis that Christian philosophy places on the negative quality of human nature as a tremendous disadvantage in the development of social virtue and justice. I see righteousness, love, justice and harmony as part of our social nature. Indeed I would say that the desire for social accord is one of the innate human qualities which was mainly responsible for our development as social beings. That does not mean that we are innately virtuous to the exclusion of negative qualities.

Old Testament Ethics

We cannot complete this study without looking at moral or ethical standards of study without looking at the moral or ethical standards of the Old Testament. This book is believed by millions to be the "Word of God". So we would expect it to be the epitome of moral wisdom and example. But is it? If the Bible were not claimed to be a sacred text, I would treat it differently. If it is indeed the voice of an almighty god, it should be able to stand up to intense scrutiny, far greater than anything I shall subject it to.

The most ethical laws found in the Old Testament are undoubtedly the ten commandments, which are as follows:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

10. Thou shalt not covet.

The first four commandments relate exclusively to religious observance. The fifth is an injunction to respect filial relationships, so that only five negative rules are established which could be called ethics and one of these has to do with sexual matters. No mention of the rights of persons, social justice, or many other ethical principles. May I suggest that the Christian obsession with sin and sexual immorality gains emphasis from this and other Hebrew sacred texts. Let us have a brief look at the ethical behaviour displayed in the Old Testament.

The ten commandments in Exodus chapter 20 are followed by another three chapters giving further commentary on the laws and stating very harsh penalties for disobedience. For instance, a person who "smiteth" his father or mother, or even curses them, shall be put to death. If a man smites his servant, and the servant dies, he shall be punished. But if the servant should survive a day or two, he shall not be punished "for he is his money". This is a strange twist of law. Is it the profit angle or the relationship of master and slave which determines the justice? The law is basically one of retribution, as Exodus 20:23 shows. "If any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." The trouble with this law is that very soon, the blind would be leading the blind.

The Old Testament is full of brutal massacres of men, women and children which were accomplished "as the Lord God commanded". Much earlier on, their god made a promise to Israel: "I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come....! will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land lest they make thee sin against me" (Exodus 23). Exactly what the Bible promised, did happen. The Israelites ruthlessly sought to annihilate the inhabitants of the lands they conquered making slaves of some of them and driving out and killing others. The sole purpose of the killing seems to be to defraud the owners of their land or to gain power over them.

Killing was almost a game for the Israelites. David wanted to marry Michal, the daughter of King Saul, "And Saul said, the king desireth not any dowry but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines to be avenged of the kings enemies....Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law". (1 Sam. 18:25-27).

The same Michal and David, by now King David, had the following experience. Michal looked out of a window and saw David dancing in public without clothes. "And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, 'How glorious was the King of Israel today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth him-self'....Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." (2 Sam. 6:20-23). Do you think she deserved to be so punished by god for chiding her husband for exposing himself in public? Another person who was innocently trying to prevent an accident was punished for his trouble. "And when they came to Nachon's threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God" (2 Sam. 6:6-7).

The Bible records that a religious warrior, Jeph-thah, was fighting the Ammonites. To help him succeed, he made a vow to his god. If he won the battles, he would sacrifice as a burnt offering the first thing which came out of his house to greet him upon his return. He won overwhelmingly "with a very great slaughter". When he neared his house, who should come out to greet him but his daughter, his only child. Although he was greatly distressed, as a religious man he had no alternative, so he finally "did to her according to his vow which he had vowed" (Judges 11:30-39). In other words he killed his own daughter, whom he loved, and made an offering of her to his god, because of a religious vow. What sort of god is it that could effect such a reaction in his follower that he should feel compelled to fulfil such a vow.

I could tell many Old Testament stories of injustice, such as how King David made a census of the people. Yahweh, his god, punished him by sending a plague which killed seventy thousand of his subjects, but it did not kill David! Who then was punished for David's error?

The Old Testament is full of brutality, sexual immorality and injustice. Can you imagine a god reputed to be caring for his people, perpetrating such viciousness through a religious philosophy? The Hebrew god of the Old Testament is no friend to his people, as history has shown. What I see over and over again throughout the Hebrew sacred text is a despotic god who is both angry and unjust. I see a god who rules by fear and wants to see blood and more blood. Please do not forget that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism and also required the blood of Jesus to satisfy an angry god.

Christian Ethics

The church always had difficulty with the variety of interpretations of doctrine within its ranks, but persecution from without had drawn the early Christians together as a vital force. When Constan-tine, the Roman Emperor, made Christianity a state religion in 323 A.D. the Church, for the first time, experienced a new kind of relationship with the people. It was no longer under a cloud of public disapproval. It had, however, scarcely begun to enjoy this new security, before violent doctrinal feuds broke out within the church.

The Nicene Creed, introduced in 325 A.D. was formulated to defend the "true faith" against doctrinal heresy. Growing up in the shadow of the Roman Empire, the Church itself became an empire and its pontiff the ecclesiastical emperor. When the Barbarians swept down from the north and fragmented the Roman Empire into small kingdoms, the spiritual empire of the universal church was left intact. From then on, we increasingly see the use of power to force the believers to follow the official doctrine. This is when the Dark Ages began to spread over Europe. It is generally believed that they began in the fourth century and continued for hundreds of years. We examine the influence of Constantine on Christianity in chapter nine.

Laws against heretics began to appear. The Church was given jurisdiction to ferret out anyone who expressed doubts of the official doctrine. Then began the cruel Inquisition, which spread throughout Europe with increasing viciousness. Thousands of honourable people suffered torture, life-long imprisonment or being burnt at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine. Books were censored and burned. Persons making speeches were suspected of heresy and subject to prosecution. A professor of theology at Alcala, Mateo Pascual, expressed in a public lecture a doubt as to purgatory. He was imprisoned and all his goods were confiscated. Property confiscated was divided between the state and the church. No witness could refuse to give evidence under pain of being considered guilty of heresy. The torture of witnesses was left to the discretion of the inquisitors. Even in Scotland as late as 1696 an eighteen year old medical student, Aikenhead, was hanged for heresy in Edinburgh.

The selling of indulgences, (remission of punishment for sin) became a means of exploiting the peo ple and of gaining power over them. As late as 1936 I visited a church organization in Jerusalem which claimed to have in its garden the olive tree under which Jesus prayed before his crucifixion. For visiting the "holy place" I was given an olive leaf by a priest and told I could have two days indulgence. It is hard for us to believe, in these more enlightened times, the religious dogmatism, superstition and fear which over shadowed the peoples of Europe for hun dreds of years.

There has occurred the notion among many people that the essence of Christianity is love, good works and justice etc. as though each was indivisible from the Christian faith. If Christianity really was the champion of love and justice, it would not have tolerated or been associated with the injustice and cruelty of the dark ages or the fear and intolerance generated by inflexible church dogma. Modern day Christians may well place great value on good social behaviour. Many of them may be notable examples of social attitudes of love, compassion, justice, goodwill and sincerity. Plato would call them virtuous persons, or Confucius would describe them as displaying the force of dignity, justice and example, or Jesus might say they were loving their neighbours. But this does not mean that religion and a concern for humanity are interdependent.

These are humanistic and social qualities, they are people to people relationships and as such are not religious qualities. They are different and separate from a relationship between a human and a supposed spirit identity or dogma. There is no reason why human beings cannot endeavour to engage inboth relationships, but let us not confuse them as necessarily dependent the one on the other.

People to people relationships or social relationships which contribute to peace and justice are beneficial under any circumstances. Indeed, they are the necessary ingredient of community and social order. It is the second relationship of humans to a supposed god or external spirit which I find unreal and ultimately harmful to human benefit. They are not social but religious in character. Indeed history has shown that they are more often anti-social and divisive.

The Innate Character of Human Ethics

All social animals, which includes human beings, have an awareness of their fellows and an instinct to co-operate. The very essence of survival, security and access to resources is based on co-operation. The sense of justice, fair play and compassion is a facet of character, a part of our social nature. We depend on it for social awareness. We have a basic untaught social drive which includes our ability to understand what our fellows are likely to feel or need under certain conditions. We say we "feel for him or her". Even small children rebel most strongly against what they consider to be unjust treatment. The real source of morality is the innate sense of justice and fair play which is one of the parts of our social nature and is found in various degrees, within every person. This is what makes us social beings. It is not the dictatorial doctrine of church or state, or even parental training, but the innate voice of our social being which influences us most strongly. Of course parental training can help to reinforce or diminish our natural sense of justice and compassion but the quality itself, is a basic part of our social nature. It speaks with equal authority to all people,black or white, educated or uneducated, religious or non-religious, rich or poor.

It was the same innate sense of justice, fair play and compassion which caused my great-grandfather to work with and support the Earl of Shaftesbury in his legislative fight to get The Factory Act 1847 passed to protect women and children from labour exploitation. 7'he same awakening moral consciousness of justice, fair play and compassion instigated and supported the moves to abolish slavery in the first half of the nineteenth century The first European power to abolish slavery was Denmark in 1792. England did so in 1833. But it was not finally achieved in America until as recently as the end of 1865. The Bible was used to support the idea of slavery.

I am not saying that the social imperative is the only innate quality we have. I am saying that it is an important in-built facet of our being which can be allowed to develop and strengthened or diminished by training. Law, which has been instigated and supported by human compassion and an innate sense of rightness, is the principal and effective means of social and moral reformation. This contention was demonstrated by the laws of Hammurabi and the philosophers we have looked at. Good law brings social order and security. History has shown that religion cannot claim very much credit for ethical betterment in our society. Rather, it is the in-built sense of justice and compassionate facets of our character which dictate moral law and behaviour, the people to people relationships.

Recent Development of Moral Law

We do not have to look back very far in time to realise the enormous social gains achieved since the Renaissance. In America, the Declaration of Independence of 1776 declared the inalienable rights of people to equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. France followed in 1789, defining the rights of citizens to equality, liberty, the right to hold property, the sanctity of the person and resistance to oppression. In England, the emancipation of the people came through British law and education. The Second Great Reform Act was passed in England in 1867, the third in 1884. The Education Act was passed in 1870, which opened elementary schools to all children and the second Education Act was passed as late as 1904. That is less than a hundred years ago!

Emerging nations slowly began to shake off the ignorance and restrictions of the dark ages. Hand in hand with the industrial revolution and an increase in education, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the abolition of slavery; the outlawing of child labour; the introduction of a huge raft of industrial and commercial law protecting workers; the giving of the vote to women; the introduction of old age pensions; and many other humane laws. Some modern countries, like my own New Zealand, introduced social security systems which, in spite of limitations, ensure that no person needing medical care is deprived of the best hospital treatment, every child becomes a participant in the education system and no one need starve. Slowly nation after nation is providing better industrial and social law and facilities for its people.

The nations of the world are talking to each other as never before. They begin to join together to protect the environment and endangered species. They begin to talk of making the Antarctic into a world park. The United Nations Health Organization is doing a tremendous job, world wide. Education is increasing world literacy as never before. Communication and travel are creating an international community. It is not a perfect world by any means. We still have a long way to go. We still spend far too much on the machinery of war and not enough on education or social services. We have a growing problem of pollution. Crime is still a world problem which we have not yet learned to handle properly. There are still millions of hungry and ill-housed people around the world. But let us not forget the advances we have made since the Renaissance. Advances which have arisen from the sense of freedom of expression, fair play, dignity and the conscience of ordinary men and women who have nudged the ethical senses of law makers. Today we have an increasing number of environmental movements such as the Green Movement, sweeping the world. They are founded by ordinary men and women who are expressing their concern for the preservation of our earth and its creatures. Such movements do not come from religious teaching. They come from the deep feelings of men and women regardless of religious belief. They are people to people awarenesses and are seperate from a person to a god relationship.

Considering the time span, modern day social law has not made big enough advances since the written laws of King Hammurabi almost 3,800 years ago. The bigotry and intolerance of Judaeo-theistic religions which arose in the Middle East, unconsciously encouraged the growth of intolerance and the dark ages. They established a religious pseudo-morality. The fear of the Inquisitors and god drove the people to live narrow lives and to limit their ethics to religious dogma. Some issues that were plainly socially immoral or unethical, like slavery, the inequality of women, lack of justice, lack of personal liberty of belief, lack of freedom of thought, expression and rational speculation, were ignored or condemned by restrictive religious dogma. Normal ethical sensitivities have been inhibited by the fixed absolute dogma of religion.

Bear in mind a statement made by J. Bronowski author of the TV. series "The Ascent of Man" He said,

"Ancient and modern history alike have shown that once inquiry is forbidden in one field, it is discouraged in all. In no society. Eastern or Western, Chinese, Roman, medieval or contemporary, have science and rational speculation long survived the imposition of absolute dogma, religious or social. If today we want to find relief from the uncertainties of a changing world in some cosy arbitrary doctrine, then we had better face the likelihood that tomorrow the Dark Ages will return."

Christian philosophy has not been the champion of ethical behaviour; it is still connected with power. It still carries the inhibiting narrowness of absolute dogma. The worship of a god Diminishes the potential of individual expectation and motives in the here and now. It has made many believe that we are innately bad and can do nothing of ourselves to change these negative qualities without the help of a god.

Confucius told us that people despotically governed and kept in order by force may avoid infraction of the law, but they will lose their moral sense. People virtuously governed and kept in order by the inner law of self control will retain their moral sense and moreover become good. His teaching has, perhaps rightly, been stated to be absolutely the purest and least open to the charge of ulterior motives. Unlike Christianity or Islam, Confucius preached neither rewards nor punishment in a future life. As Plato said, to live morally and justly is to live in spiritual health; the opposite is spiritual disease. We still need laws to protect us from the inhumanity of human to human. We also need more research into human behaviour plus education and remedial help for our ethically diseased. We need to help them back to wholeness and develop those inner qualities Confucius talked about so long ago. Let us endeavour to create a better society, a better nation and a better world to live in.