Let us each concern ourselves only with the solution of the inner question, that of our own conduct in life, and all questions concerning the outer world will thereby receive their best solution.

We do not know, and cannot know, in what general well-being consists.  But we surely know that the realization of this well-being is possible only when we fulfill the law of goodness revealed to each man.

If, instead of dreaming of universal salvation, we concern ourselves with our own; if, instead of liberating humanity, we liberate ourselves; then we would do a great deal more for the salvation and freedom of everyone.  (Herzen, Daily Reading, June 30th)

In individual life and in social life there is only one law: if you wish to better your life, be ready to sacrifice it.  (Daily Reading, January 19th)

Accomplish your task in life by obeying the divine will, and you will be certain to help towards the betterment of social life in the most efficient way.  (Daily Reading, January 17th)

The following objection is often made: “All that you say may be true, but it will be possible to abstain from every act of violence only when the whole world, or even the majority, will understand the disastrous, futile, and senseless meaning of violence.  While waiting for that, what can a few isolated individuals do?  Must we refuse to defend ourselves, and let our neighbors be attacked by the wicked?”

Let us suppose that a brigand is raising his knife over his victim.  I see him and am armed with a revolver, so I can kill him.  But I am not absolutely certain what the brigand will do.  He might not strike, while I would surely kill him.  That is why the only thing a man can do in such a case is to follow his invariable rule of conduct, dictated by his conscience.  But his conscience may demand his own life, and not that of another.  Thus, to the question of what one should do in the presence of a crime committed by one or by a great number, every man, free of the superstition that affirms the possibility of foreseeing the future, will answer, “Do to others what you would have them do to you.”

“But others steal, pillage, and kill, while I do none of these things.  Let them also follow the law of mutual aid.  Then I, in my turn, can be asked to observe it.”  The men of our world make this objection, with greater assurance the higher their situations is in the social scale.

“I do not steal,” say the sovereign, the minister, the general, the judge, the landed proprietor, the merchant, the soldier, and the policeman.  As a matter of fact, our idea of our social organization, founded on violence, is so impressed upon us that we do not perceive all the crimes that they commit each day in the name of the public good.  We see only the rare violent attempts of those who are called murderers, burglars, or thieves.

“He is a murderer, he is a thief, he does not observe the rule of not doing to others what you would not have them do to you,” say the same people who go on killing in war, who force nations to prepare for carnage, and who steal from and despoil their own as well as foreign nations.  If the rule of mutual aid has no more effect upon those who, in our society, are called murderers or thieves, it is only because they constitute a part of the immense majority of people who, for generations and generations, were robbed and despoiled by men, and who do not see the criminal character of their acts.

That is why, to the question of knowing what attitude to take regarding those who use force against us, one can only answer, “Stop doing to others what you would not have them do to you.”

 There is great inconsistency and injustice connected with the punishment in certain cases of violence, when the most horrible crimes committed by the State in the name of the general good are left unpunished.  These same punishments have a different result from what is generally expected.  In fact, they destroy the powerful force of public opinion, which is a hundred times more capable of guaranteeing society against every act of violence than are the prisons and guillotines.

This reasoning can be applied with striking proof in international relations.

“How could we do otherwise than resist the invasion of our country by savages, who come to take away our property, our wives, and our daughters?” object those who wish to protect themselves from the crimes that they commit against other nations.  “Yellow peril,” cry the whites; “White peril,” cry the Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese with more reason.

But as soon as one is freed from the superstitions that justify violence, one understands all the horror of the crimes committed by one nation against another.  Even more, one understands the moral stupidity that allows English, Russians, Germans, French, and Americans to dream of protecting themselves against the very acts of violence that they commit in India, Indo-China, Poland, Manchuria, and Algeria.

It is enough, then, to free ourselves, even for a time, from the horrible superstition that lets us believe in the possibility of knowing the future forms of society.  Such a superstition justifies every act of violence, and sincerely approves of our present life.  If we free ourselves, we will immediately understand that recognizing the necessity of opposing evil by violence is only the justification of our habitual vices: vengeance, cupidity, envy, ambition, pride, cowardice, and spite.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 17

Finding strange the blindness of the men who believe in the necessity for violence, and convinced as I am of the contrary, it is not arguments, however, that can persuade me and convince others of the truth.  What determines my belief is the certainty of the spiritual nature of man, of which love is the manifestation.  But real love, revealed to us by Christ, excludes the possibility of all violence.

I do not know, and no one can know, if the use of violence or resignation when threatened with evil will be useful or useless, harmful or harmless.  But what I know, and what everyone knows, is that love is good.  It is good when men feel affection for me.  It is much better if I feel affection for men.  In fact, the greatest good of all is my affection for all, not only for those who love me, but also, as Christ said, for those who hate me and injure me.  Strange as it may be to anyone who has not felt this, it is nevertheless true.  And the more I ponder on it, the more surprised I am not to have felt it sooner.

Real love, which denies self and identifies its “ego” with another, is synonymous with the awakening in the soul of the superior, universal principle of life.  This is true love, and it gives all the good that it can give when it is only love – that is to say, when it is free of any personal interest.  And it is this kind of love that must be felt for the enemy or the offender.

That is why the recommendation to love not only those who love you, but also those who hate you is no exaggeration.  It simply indicates the impossibility of any exception, and the possibility of gaining the highest good that love can give.

The fact that it should be so is self-evident, but one must feel it to be convinced.  As soon as one has felt it, offenses and attacks become undesirable.  It follows that the human soul suffers when one opposes evil with evil, and on the other hand, feels the greatest happiness in returning good for evil.