hearers that the ministry is the highest of all callings while the contempt of lawyers for the skill or knowledge of others has been chronic. And who has not been told that labor produces all goods and who else ever can be "practical" but the business man? In so far as this group-smugness is born of a conviction of the dignity and social value of one's calling, such a feeling will have social value. But in so far as it is indicative of group-selfishness, we must find an antidote for it.
And that antidote has been suggested in the Interprofessional Conference. Such a Conference was held in Detroit in 1919. The purpose of that Conference (see page 13) was "to liberate the professions from the domination of selfish interest, both within and without the professions, to devise ways and means of better utilizing the professional heritage and skill for the benefit of society and to create relations between the professions looking toward that end." The Congress of the Building Industry, formed in this country, is fraught with such possibilities. Mr. Hoover's Unemployment Conference created in the minds of its most selfish members an impulse to do one's duty toward others. Such congresses where one may learn of the needs and points of view of others will tend to transmute group-selfishness into group-ideals of public service. The public weal is a joint product of the loyal services of the skill, knowledge and creative ability of all. Useless one group or profession without the other.
Codes of ethics are the means by which groups keep their members socially victorious over self-aggrandizement. To survive, such codes must achieve a unity not of negation but of spirit—a spirit that consecrates life to the long-time interests of all through one's efforts while making a living.
Editor.
