The Law of Preservation

702. Is the instinct of self-preservation a law of nature?

702. Is the instinct to preserve one's own life a law of nature?

"Undoubtedly so. It is given to all living creatures, whatever their degree of intelligence; in some it is purely mechanical, in others it is allied to reason."

"Certainly. It is given to all living creatures, whatever their level of intelligence. In some, it is purely mechanical. In others, it is linked to reason."

703. To what end has God given the instinct of self-preservation to all living beings?

703. Why has God given all living beings the instinct to preserve themselves?

"They are all necessary to the working out of the providential plans; and therefore God has given them the desire to live. And besides, life is a necessary condition of the improvement of beings; they feel this instinctively, without understanding it."

"They are all necessary to carry out God's plans, so God has given them the desire to live. Life is also necessary for beings to improve. They feel this instinctively, without understanding it."

704. Has God, while giving to man the desire to live, always furnished him with the means of doing so?

704. In giving people the desire to live, has God always given them the means to do so?

"Yes; and if man does not always find them, it is because he does not know how to avail himself of the resources around him. God could not implant in man the love of life, without giving him the means of living; and He has accordingly endowed the earth with a capacity of production sufficient to furnish all its inhabitants with the necessaries of life. It is only that which is necessary that is useful; that which is superfluous is never useful."

"Yes. And if people do not always find them, it is because they do not know how to use the resources around them. God could not give people a love of life without also giving them the means to live. So he made the earth capable of producing enough to provide all its inhabitants with life's necessities. Only what is necessary is useful. What is unnecessary is never useful."

705. Why does not the earth always produce enough to provide mankind with the necessaries of life?

705. Why doesn't the earth always produce enough to provide everyone with the necessities of life?

"It is because man ungratefully neglects that excellent nursing-mother! Moreover, he often accuses nature of what is the result of his own unskilfulness or want of forethought. The earth would always produce the necessaries of life, if men could content themselves therewith. If it does not suffice for all his wants, it is because men employ, in superfluities, what should be devoted to the supply of necessaries. Look at the Arab in the desert; he always finds enough to live upon, because he does not create for himself factitious needs; but when half the products of the earth are wasted in satisfying fanciful desires, ought man to be astonished if he afterwards runs short, and has he any reason to complain if he finds himself unprovided for when a famine occurs? I repeat it; nature is not improvident, but man does not know how to regulate his use of her gifts."

“It is because people ungratefully neglect that excellent nursing mother, nature! They also often blame nature for the results of their own lack of skill or foresight. The earth would always produce the necessities of life if people could be content with them. If it does not satisfy all their wants, it is because people use resources for luxuries that should provide necessities. Look at the Arab in the desert. He always finds enough to live on because he does not create artificial needs for himself. But when people waste half the earth’s products on fanciful desires, should they be surprised when they run short? Do they have any reason to complain if they find themselves unprovided for during a famine? I repeat: nature is not careless about the future, but people do not know how to manage her gifts.”

706. By the term 'fruits of the earth,' should we understand merely the products of the soil?

706. Does the term 'fruits of the earth' mean only what grows in the soil?

"The soil is the original source of all other productions, which are, in reality, only a transformation of the products of the soil; for that reason, by 'fruits of the earth' are to be understood everything enjoyed by man in his corporeal life."

"The soil is the original source of everything else produced. All other products are really just transformations of what comes from the soil. For that reason, 'fruits of the earth' means everything people enjoy in their physical lives."

707. There are always persons who lack the means of existence, even in the midst of abundance. Who is to blame for this?

707. There are always people who lack the means to live, even amid abundance. Who is to blame for this?

"In some cases, the selfishness which too often prevents men from being just to others; in other cases, and most often, themselves. Christ has said, 'Seek, and ye shall find;' but these words do not imply that you have only to cast your eyes on the ground in order to find all that you may desire, but rather that you must seek for what you want, and not indolently, but with ardour and perseverance, and without allowing yourselves to be discouraged by obstacles that are often only a means of putting your constancy, patience, and firmness to the proof." (534.)

"In some cases, it is the selfishness that too often prevents people from being fair to others. In other cases, and most often, it is themselves. Christ said, 'Seek, and you shall find.' But this does not mean you only need to look at the ground to find everything you desire. Rather, you must seek what you want, not lazily, but with eagerness and perseverance. And you must not let obstacles discourage you. They are often only a way of testing your constancy, patience, and firmness." (534.)

If civilisation multiplies our needs, it also multiplies our resources and our means of existence. But it must be admitted that, in this respect, much still remains to be done; for civilisation will only have accomplished its task when it shall no longer be possible for any human being to lack the necessaries of life, unless through his own fault. Unfortunately, too, many persons choose a path for which nature has not fitted them, and in which they necessarily fail of success. There is room in the sunshine for every one; but on condition that each takes his own place, and not that of another. Nature cannot justly be held responsible for the results of defective social organisation, nor for those of personal selfishness and ambition.

If civilization increases our needs, it also increases our resources and our means of making a living. But we must admit that much remains to be done in this respect. Civilization will have completed its task only when no one lacks the necessities of life except through their own fault. Unfortunately, many people also choose a path for which nature has not suited them. They are bound to fail on that path. There is room in the sunshine for everyone, provided each person takes their own place, not someone else's. Nature cannot justly be blamed for the results of poor social organization or of personal selfishness and ambition.

There would, however, be blindness in denying the progress which has already been accomplished in this direction among the nations which are most advanced. Thanks to the efforts of philanthropy and of science for the amelioration of the material condition of mankind, and notwithstanding the constant increase of the population of the globe, the effects of insufficient production are considerably attenuated, so that the most unfavourable years are far less calamitous than formerly. Hygiene, unknown to our forefathers, yet so essential a condition of public and individual health, is the object of constant and enlightened solicitude; asylums are provided for the unfortunate and the suffering; and every new discovery of science is made to contribute its quota to the general weal. Far as we still are from having attained to the perfection of social arrangements, what is already accomplished gives the measure of what may be done with the aid of perseverance, if men are reasonable enough to seek after solid and practical improvements, instead of wasting their energies on Utopian projects that put them back instead of helping them forward.

However, it would be blind to deny the progress already made in this direction among the most advanced nations. Philanthropy and science have worked to improve people's material conditions. Despite continued global population growth, their efforts have greatly reduced the effects of insufficient production. As a result, the worst years are far less disastrous than they once were. Our ancestors knew nothing of hygiene, yet it is essential to public and individual health. Today, hygiene receives constant, informed attention. Shelters are provided for the unfortunate and suffering, and every new scientific discovery contributes to the common good. We are still far from having a perfect social system. Yet what has already been achieved shows what perseverance can accomplish. This is possible if people are reasonable enough to seek solid, practical improvements. They must not waste their energy on utopian projects that set them back instead of helping them move forward.

708. Are there not social positions in which the will is powerless to obtain the means of existence, and in which the privation of the barest necessaries of life is a consequence of the force of circumstances?

708. Aren't there social situations where no effort of will can secure a livelihood? And where circumstances leave people without even the bare necessities of life?

"Yes; but such a position is a trial which, however severe, the party who is subjected to it knew, in the spirit-state, that he would have to undergo. His merit will result from his submission to the will of God, if his intelligence does not furnish him with the means of freeing himself from his troubles. If death supervenes, he should meet it without a murmur, remembering that the hour of his deliverance is approaching, and that any yielding to despair at the last moment may cause him to lose the fruit of his previous resignation."

"Yes, but such a situation is a trial, however severe. The person facing it knew in the spirit-state that he would have to undergo it. If his intelligence does not show him how to escape his troubles, his merit will come from accepting God's will. If death comes, he should face it without complaint. He should remember that his release is near and that giving in to despair at the last moment may cause him to lose the reward of his earlier acceptance."

709. In critical situations men have been reduced to devour their fellow-men, as the only means of saving themselves from starvation. Have they, in so doing, committed a crime? And if so, is their crime lessened by the fact that it has been committed under the excitement of the instinct of self-preservation?

709. In desperate situations, people have eaten other people as the only way to save themselves from starvation. Have they committed a crime by doing so? If so, is their crime lessened because they acted under the powerful instinct to survive?

"I have already answered this question in saying that all the trials of life should be submitted to with courage and abnegation. In the cases you refer to there is both homicide and crime against nature; a double culpability that will receive double punishment."

“I have already answered this question. I said that all of life’s trials should be faced with courage and self-denial. The cases you refer to involve both homicide and a crime against nature. This double guilt will receive double punishment.”

710. In worlds in which the corporeal organisation of living beings is of a purer nature than in the earth, do these need food?

710. On worlds where living beings have purer physical bodies than those on Earth, do they need food?

"Yes; but their food is in keeping with their nature. Their aliments would not be substantial enough for your gross stomachs; and, on the other hand, those beings could not digest your heavier food."

"Yes, but their food suits their nature. It would not be substantial enough for your coarse stomachs. On the other hand, those beings could not digest your heavier food."

711. Have all men a right to the usufruct of the products of the earth?

711. Does everyone have the right to use and benefit from the products of the earth?

"That right is a consequence of the necessity of living. God cannot have imposed a duty without having given the means of discharging it."

"That right follows from the need to live. God cannot have imposed a duty without providing the means to fulfill it."

712. Why has God attached an attraction to the enjoyment of material things?

712. Why has God made the enjoyment of material things attractive?

"In order, first, to excite man to the accomplishment of his mission, and next, to try him by temptation."

"First, to encourage people to carry out their mission, and then to test them through temptation."

—What is the aim of this temptation?

What is the purpose of this temptation?

"To develop his reason, that it may preserve him from excesses."

"To develop his ability to reason, so that it may protect him from excess."

If man had only been urged to the using of the things of the earthly life by a conviction of their utility, his indifference to them might have compromised the harmony of the universe. God has therefore given him the pleasurable attractions that solicit him to the accomplishing of the views of Providence. But God has also willed, through this attraction, to try man by temptations that incite him to abuses against which his reason should protect him.

If people were motivated to use the things of earthly life only by their usefulness, their indifference might have threatened the harmony of the universe. God has therefore made these things pleasurable, drawing people to fulfill the purposes of Providence. But God also intended to test people through this attraction. It tempts them to excess, against which their reason should protect them.

713. Has nature marked out the proper limits of corporeal satisfactions?

713. Has nature set proper limits on physical pleasures?

"Yes, limits that coincide with your needs and your well-being. When you overstep them, you bring on satiety, and thus punish yourselves."

"Yes, limits that match your needs and well-being. When you go beyond them, you become overfull and punish yourselves."

714. What is to be thought of the man who seeks to enhance corporeal enjoyments by inventing artificial excesses?

714. What should we think of a man who invents artificial excesses to increase physical pleasure?

"Think of him as a poor wretch who is to be pitied rather than envied, for he is very near death."

"Think of him as a poor man to be pitied, not envied, because he is close to death."

—Do you mean to physical death, or to moral death?

Do you mean physical death or moral death?

"To both."

"To both."

The man who, in pursuit of corporeal satisfactions, seeks an enhancement of those satisfactions in any kind of excess, places himself below the level of the brute, for the brute goes no farther than the satisfaction of a need. He abdicates the reason given to him by God for his guidance; and the greater his excesses, the more dominion does he give to his animal nature over his spiritual nature. The maladies and infirmities, often occasioning death, that are the consequences of excess in the satisfaction of any corporeal attraction, are also punishments for thus transgressing the law of God.

A man who seeks greater physical pleasure through excess puts himself below an animal. For an animal goes no further than satisfying a need. He gives up the reason God gave him to guide him. The greater his excesses, the more power he gives his animal nature over his spiritual nature. Excessive indulgence of any physical desire can cause illness and disability, often leading to death. These consequences are also punishments for breaking God’s law.

715. How can men know the limit of what is necessary?

715. How can people know how much they need?

"Wise men know it by intuition; others learn it through experience, and to their cost."

"Wise people know it instinctively. Others learn it through experience, at a cost to themselves."

716. Has not nature traced out the limit of our needs in the requirements of our organisation?

716. Hasn't nature set the limits of our needs through the requirements of our bodies?

"Yes, but man is insatiable. Nature has indicated the limits of his needs by his organisation; but his vices have deteriorated his constitution, and created for him wants that are not real needs."

"Yes, but people are never satisfied. Nature has set limits on their needs through the way their bodies are made. But their vices have weakened their bodies and created desires that are not real needs."

717. What is to be thought of those who monopolise the productions of the earth, in order to procure for themselves superfluities, at the expense of others who lack the necessaries of life?

717. What should we think of those who monopolize the earth's resources to obtain luxuries for themselves, while others lack life's necessities?

"They forget the law of God, and will have to answer for the privations they have caused others to endure."

"They forget God's law and will have to answer for the hardships they have caused others to suffer."

There is no absolute boundary-line between the necessary and the superfluous. Civilisation has created necessities that do not exist for the savage; and the spirits who have dictated the foregoing precepts do not mean to assert that civilised men should live like the savage.

There is no fixed line between what is necessary and what is extra. Civilization has created needs that do not exist for people living in primitive societies. But the spirits who dictated the preceding teachings do not mean that civilized people should live like them.

All things are relative; and the function of reason is to determine the part to be allotted to each. Civilisation develops the moral sense, and, at the same time, the sentiment of charity, which leads men to give to each other mutual support. Those who live at the expense of other men's privations monopolise the benefits of civilisation for their own profit; they have only the varnish of civilisation, as others have only the mask of religion.

All things are relative. Reason’s role is to determine the proper share for each. Civilization develops our moral sense and our sense of charity, which leads people to support one another. Those who live at the expense of others’ hardships claim the benefits of civilization for themselves. They have only a veneer of civilization, just as others wear only a mask of religion.

718. Does the law of self-preservation make it our duty to provide for our bodily wants?

718. Does the law of self-preservation make it our duty to meet our bodily needs?

"Yes; without physical health and strength, labour is impossible."

"Yes, without physical health and strength, work is impossible."

719. Is it blamable in a man to seek after the comforts and enjoyments of corporeal life?

719. Is it wrong for a person to seek the comforts and pleasures of physical life?

"The desire of corporeal well-being is natural to man. God only prohibits excess, because excess is inimical to preservation; He has not made it a crime to seek after enjoyment, if that enjoyment be not acquired at another's expense, and if it be not of a nature to weaken either your moral or your physical strength."

"The desire for physical well-being is natural to people. God only forbids excess because it works against preservation. He has not made it a crime to seek pleasure, if it does not come at someone else's expense. Nor must the pleasure weaken your moral or physical strength."

720. Are voluntary privations, in view of a voluntary expiation, meritorious in the sight of God?

720. Does God consider it virtuous to voluntarily give things up as a way of atoning for wrongdoing?

"Do good to others, and you will thereby acquire more merit than is to be acquired by any self-imposed privations."

"Do good to others, and you will earn more merit than by denying yourself anything."

—Is any voluntary privation meritorious?

Is any voluntary self-denial worthy of merit?

"Yes; the self-privation of useless indulgences, because it loosens man's hold on matter, and elevates his soul. What is meritorious is resistance to the temptation that solicits to excess or to indulgence in what is useless; it is the cutting down even of your necessaries, that you may have more to give to those who are in want. If your privations are only a vain pretence, they are a mere mockery."

"Yes. Giving up unnecessary pleasures loosens our attachment to the material world and elevates the soul. What matters is resisting the temptation to overindulge or enjoy what is unnecessary. It also means giving up even some necessities so you can give more to those in need. If you give things up only for show, your sacrifice is a mockery."

721. At every period in the past, and among all peoples, there have been men who have lived a life of ascetic mortification; is such a life meritorious from any point of view?

721. Throughout history, among all peoples, men have lived lives of strict self-denial. Is such a life worthwhile in any way?

"Ask yourselves to whom such a life is useful, and you will have the reply to your question. If such a life is only for him who leads it, and if it prevents him from doing good to others, it is only a form of selfishness, whatever the pretext with which it is coloured. True mortification, according to the dictates of Christian charity, is to impose privation and labour upon yourselves for the good of others."

"Ask yourselves who benefits from such a life, and you will have the answer to your question. If such a life benefits only the person living it and prevents them from doing good for others, it is selfish. No excuse can change that. True self-denial, according to Christian charity, means accepting hardship and work for the good of others."

722. Is there any foundation in reason for the abstinence from certain aliments practised among various peoples?

722. Is there any rational basis for the practice among various peoples of avoiding certain foods?

"Whatever man can eat without injury to his health is permitted to him. Legislators may have prohibited certain aliments for some useful end, and, in order to give greater weight to their prohibitions, have represented them as emanating from God."

"People may eat anything that does not harm their health. Lawmakers may have banned certain foods for a useful purpose. To give their bans greater weight, they may have claimed that God commanded them."

723. Is the use of animal food by man contrary to the law of nature?

723. Is it against the law of nature for humans to eat animal foods?

"With your physical constitution, flesh is useful for nourishing flesh; without this kind of sustenance man's strength declines. The law of preservation makes it a duty for man to keep up his health and strength, that he may fulfil the law of labour. He should therefore feed himself according to the requirements of his organisation."

"Given how your body is made, meat is useful for nourishing it. Without this kind of food, a person's strength declines. The law of preservation makes it a person's duty to maintain health and strength so they can fulfill the law of labor. Therefore, they should eat according to their body's needs."

724. Is there any merit in abstinence from any particular kind of food, animal or other, when undergone as an expiation?

724. Is there any merit in giving up a particular food, whether animal or otherwise, as an act of atonement?

"Yes, if undergone for the sake of others; but God can not regard as meritorious any abstinence that does not impose a real privation, and that has not a serious and useful aim. This is why we say that those whose fasting is only apparent are hypocrites." (720.)

"Yes, if it is done for the sake of others. But God cannot consider abstinence worthy of praise unless it involves real sacrifice and has a serious and useful purpose. That is why we say that those who only pretend to fast are hypocrites." (720.)

725. What is to be thought of the mutilation of the bodies of men or of animals?

725. What should we think of mutilating the bodies of humans or animals?

"What is the use of asking such a question? Ask yourselves, once for all, whether a thing is or is not useful. What is useless cannot be pleasing to God, and what is hurtful is always displeasing to Him. Be very sure that God is only pleased with the sentiments that raise the soul towards Him. It is by practising His law, and not by violating it, that you can shake off your terrestrial matter."

“What is the point of asking such a question? Ask yourselves, once and for all, whether something is useful. What is useless cannot please God, and what is harmful always displeases him. Be sure that God is pleased only by feelings that raise the soul toward him. You can shed your earthly matter by following his law, not by breaking it.”

726. If the sufferings of this world elevate us through the manner in which we bear them, are we elevated by those which we voluntarily create for ourselves?

726. If the way we bear suffering in this world elevates us, does suffering we willingly bring upon ourselves also elevate us?

"The only sufferings that can elevate you are those which come upon you naturally, because they are inflicted by God. Voluntary sufferings count for nothing when they are not useful to others. Do you suppose that those who shorten their lives by superhuman hardships, like the bonzes, fakirs, and fanatics of various sects, advance their progress thereby? Why do they not rather labour for the good of their fellow-creatures? Let them clothe the naked; let them comfort those who mourn; let them work for the infirm; let them impose privations upon themselves for the sake of the unfortunate and the needy; and their life will be useful, and pleasing to God. When your voluntary sufferings are undergone only for yourselves, they are mere selfishness; when you suffer for others, you obey the law of charity. Such are the precepts of Christ."

"The only suffering that can elevate you is the suffering that comes naturally, because God inflicts it. Voluntary suffering counts for nothing when it does not benefit others. Some people shorten their lives through extreme hardships, like the bonzes, fakirs, and fanatics of various sects. Do you suppose they advance their progress by doing so? Why do they not instead work for the good of others? Let them clothe the naked and comfort those who mourn. Let them work for the infirm and deny themselves for the sake of the unfortunate and needy. Then their lives will be useful and pleasing to God. When you suffer voluntarily only for yourselves, it is mere selfishness. When you suffer for others, you obey the law of charity. These are the teachings of Christ."

727. If we ought not to create for ourselves voluntary sufferings that are of no use to others, ought we to endeavour to ward off from ourselves those which we foresee, or with which we are threatened?

727. If we should not willingly cause ourselves suffering that helps no one else, should we try to avoid suffering we foresee or that threatens us?

"The instinct of self-preservation has been given to all beings to guard them against dangers and sufferings. Flagellate your spirit, and not your body; mortify your pride; stifle the selfishness that eats into the heart like a devouring worm; and you will do more for your advancement than you could do by any amount of macerations out of keeping with the age in which you are living."

"All beings have been given the instinct of self-preservation to protect them from danger and suffering. Discipline your spirit, not your body. Humble your pride. Stifle the selfishness that eats away at the heart like a devouring worm. You will advance further this way than through any amount of bodily self-denial that is out of place in your age."