Chapter 7 Volume 4-2

Chapter Seven: On the Censorship Just as the declaration of the general will is embodied by the law, similarly, the declaration of public judgment is embodied by the censor system.Public opinion is a law, and the censor is the executor of this law; and the censor, like the precedent of the prince, can only be applied in particular cases. The court of the Ombudsman, therefore, far from being an arbiter of the opinion of the people, is only a proclaimer of it; so long as it is divorced from the opinion of the people, its decisions are empty and void. It is vain to distinguish the customs of a people from the objects of their admiration; for both rest upon the same principle, and so necessarily mix.Among all peoples in the world, it is by no means nature but opinion that determines what they like or hate.As long as people's opinions are corrected, their customs will naturally be pure.Men always like what is good, or what they think is good; but it is in this judgment that they err; it is therefore that judgment needs to be regulated.He who judges fashion judges honor, and he who judges honor draws his laws from public opinion.

The various opinions of a nation are born out of its system.Although laws do not regulate fashion, it is legislation that makes fashion possible.When the legislation is weak, fashion is atrophied; and then the judgment of the censor does not do what the power of the law has not done. From this it follows that the censorship may be useful in maintaining fashion, but it is absolutely useless in restoring it.You may set up censors while the law is strong; but when the law loses its strength, all is hopeless; as long as the law has no strength, nothing that is lawful has any power. To guard against the corruption of public opinion, to keep them correct by wise measures, and sometimes to fix them even when they are undecided,--this is how the censorship maintains fashion.The habit of bringing a second hand to a duel once flourished wildly in the Kingdom of France, but it was abolished with just a few words in the king's edict: "As for those who are so cowardly that they need a second people." This judgment anticipates the public judgment, and so at once determines it.But when the same decree tried to declare that it was a cowardice to fight a duel--which was quite right, but contrary to popular opinion--the public laughed at the decision; Public judgment has long been formed.I have elsewhere said that public opinion is never subject to coercion, and that there need not be the slightest trace of coercion in a court established to represent it.We cannot praise enough the art with which the Romans—and the Rasidemonians, with greater dexterity—exercised a power which modern man has completely lost.

An immoral man made a good suggestion in the council of Sparta, and the censors ignored it, and let another virtuous citizen make the same suggestion.What an honor to the latter, and what an insult to the former; at the same time neither praise nor condemnation of either.A few drunks from Satsuma defiled the seats of the supervisory committee, and the next day there was an explicit order to allow Satsuma people to be indecent.Such a punishment is more severe than the real punishment.All Greece did not consult their judgment when Sparta had declared what was just and what was not. Chapter VIII Of Civil Religion

In the beginning, men had no kings but gods, no governments but theocracy.What they did was what Caligula thought; and at the time, they were right.It takes a long period of change of feeling and thought before men decide to make masters of their own kind, and boast that it will be beneficial to do so. Every political society has a god over its head; and this alone shows that there are as many gods as there are nations.Two peoples, distinct from each other, and almost always at odds, cannot long support the same master.Two warring armies will not obey the same leader.Thus the division of nations created polytheism, and from it theological and political intolerance; the two intolerances, as we shall see, are essentially the same.

The Greeks had an illusion of finding their own gods among savage nations; this illusion arose from another illusion they had of themselves as the natural gods of these savage nations. Owner.But in our day, it is absurd to confuse the gods of different peoples together: as if Moloch, Saturine, and Krono could be the same god, as if Baal of the Phoenicians Zeus of the Greeks and Peter of the Latins could be one and the same god, as if these imaginary gods, each with a different name, could still have something in common! If it be asked, why, in pagan times, did every nation have its own religious cult and its own gods, and yet there were never religious wars?My answer is that each country has its own unique religious cult and its own government, so these countries do not distinguish their gods and laws at all.Political wars are also theological wars; the domain of each god is fixed, so to speak, by national boundaries.The god of one nation has no rights over other nations.The gods of the heathen were by no means jealous gods, they divided the whole world from each other; even Moses and the Hebrews sometimes adopted this idea when speaking of the God of Israel.Indeed, they despised as nothing the god of that people who were exiled, doomed to destruction, and whose land they should still occupy—the Canaanites; yet see how they Speaking of the gods of the neighboring peoples who resisted their attack.Jephthah said to the Ammonites: "Isn't what belongs to your god Chemosh legally counted as yours? We are also entitled to occupy the land conquered by our god."It seems to me that here is a good recognition of the equal rights of Chemosh and the God of Israel.

But the Jews, subject first to the king of Babylon and then to the king of Syria, still insisted on acknowledging no gods but their own; a kind of rebellion which brought them persecutions.These are the ones we have read about in history, and we haven't seen any other precedent before Christianity.Since every religion is wholly dependent upon the laws of the state which regulates it; therefore, a people can never be converted but by enslavement, nor can it be preached but by conquerors. and since the duty to convert is the law of the conquered, the conquest must begin before speaking of conversion.Far from men fighting for the gods, it is the gods fighting for men, as Homer says; each side asks its god for victory, and pays him for new altars.The Romans summoned the gods of a place to abdicate before they took it; and when they left to the Tarentines the angry gods of the Tarentines, it was because at that time they thought the gods had bowed to their gods, and had to bow down to their gods.The Romans left their gods to the conquered, just as the Romans left their laws to the conquered.

A diadem offered to Peter Zhou at the Capitoline Temple in Rome was usually the only tribute the Romans demanded. At length the Romans extended their cult and their gods along with their empire, and they themselves often adopted those of the conquered, and conferred the rights of the city-state on both; It was only then that the peoples of the vast empire found themselves already without their knowledge a multitude of gods and religious cults, which were almost the same everywhere.This is how paganism finally became the only religion in the known world at that time. It was in this situation that Jesus came out to establish a spiritual kingdom on earth; this divided the theological system from the political system, thereby making the state no longer unitary, and creating an everlasting In the internal divisions that agitated the Christian nations.But since the new idea of ​​the kingdom of another world could never be received by the heathen mind, the heathen always regarded Christians as true rebels; The spy wants to be his own master, and cunningly wants to usurp that authority which, in his weakness, he pretends to respect.This is the reason for religious persecution.

What the heathen dreaded came at last.That's when everything changed.Humble Christians changed their language, and soon we saw this so-called kingdom of another world, under a visible leader, become the most violent despotism in this world. But since there can only ever be one sovereign and one law of the citizens, this dual power results in a perpetual conflict of jurisprudence; which makes no good government possible in a Christian state, and the people can never There is no way of knowing which one should be obeyed between the master and the priest. Many peoples, even in Europe or neighboring Europe, have attempted, without success, to preserve or restore the ancient system; everywhere the Christian spirit has triumphed.The sacred cult is always, or becomes again, independent of the sovereign and has no necessary connection with the national community.Muhammad had a sound eye, and he connected his political system well; and while his form of government continued under his successors, the Caliphs, it was indeed monistic, and very it is good.But the Arabs later became prosperous, civilized, civilized, effeminate and cowardly, and they were conquered by the barbarians; and at this time the split between the two powers began again.This schism, though less pronounced among Mohammedans than among Christians, still existed, especially among the sects of Ali; and in some countries, such as Persia, it can still be seen today people notice.

Among us the king of England has made himself head of the church, and the tsar has done the same; It is not so much to change the power of the church as to maintain the power of the church; they are not legislators in the church, but only princes.Wherever the clergy form a community, the clergy are masters and legislators within their own department.Thus, in England, in Russia as elsewhere, there are two powers, two sovereigns. Of all the Christian writers, the philosopher Hobbes is the only one who saw this malady and its remedy so well that he dared to propose that the two heads of the eagle be reunited and completely reconstructed. Political unity; for without political unity, neither state nor government can ever be well organized.However, he should also see that the ruling spirit of Christianity is incompatible with his system, and the interests of the pastor will always be stronger than the interests of the country.

Hobbes is hated not for what is terrible and wrong in his political theory, but for what is right and true in it. I believe that developing historical facts from this point of view, we can easily refute the opposing views of Bell and Warburton; Advocate that Christianity is the strongest support of the body politic.We may prove to the former that no state has ever been established without a foundation of religion; and to the latter that Christian laws are in the last analysis more harmful than beneficial to the strong institutions of the state.In order to make it understandable, it is only necessary here to clarify a little more the various religious notions which are too vague in connection with my subject.

Religion, so far as it relates to social energy—whether in general or in particular—may also be divided into two kinds, the religion of man and the religion of the citizen.The former religion has no temples, no altars, no ceremonies, but is limited to the pure heart worship of the Supreme God, and the eternal obligation to morality; it is the pure and simple religion of the gospel, it is true Theism, we can Call it the divine right of nature.The latter religion is written in the books of a certain country, which stipulates the country's own gods and guardians unique to this country.It has its own dogmas, its own ordinances, its own statutory manifestations of worship.All nations, save this one which is the sole adherent of this religion, appear to it impious, alienated, and barbaric; and it extends the rights and duties of man only as far as its altars.This is the case with all the religions of primitive peoples, which we may call civil or positive divine rights. There is a third religion, even more bizarre, which gives two legislations, two chiefs, two fatherlands, subjects men to two contradictory duties, and does not allow them the possibility of being believers and beings at the same time. citizen.Such is the case with Lamaism; such is the religion of the Japanese; such is the case with Roman Christianity.We may call it the religion of priests.Herein lies an unnamed, hybrid, anti-social right. When examining these three religions politically, each has its own shortcomings. The evils of the third religion are so obvious; it would be a waste of time to try to prove them.Anything that destroys the unity of society is worthless; every system that makes people self-contradictory is also worthless. The advantage of the second religion is that it combines the worship of the gods with the love of the law; and because it makes the fatherland an object of worship to the citizens, it teaches them that allegiance to the state is allegiance to the state. patron saint.It is a theocracy; under which no one can have any priest but a prince, nor any priest but a magistrate.To die in service of the state, then, is a generous martyrdom, and to violate the law is blasphemy; and to subject the sinner to a public curse is to offer him to the wrath of God: Saceresto (Let him be damned).The evil of the second religion, however, is that it is based on errors and lies, so that it deceives the people, makes them blind, superstitious, and reduces the true worship of the gods to an empty ceremony.Worse still, when it becomes exclusive and tyrannical, it makes the whole nation bloodthirsty and intolerant, so that it can live only by murder and massacre; To kill a man who does not believe in its kind of god is to perform a holy act.This puts such a nation in a natural state of war against all other nations, which is also very harmful to its own security. Then there remains only the religion of man, which is Christianity—but not today's Christianity, but the Christianity of the Gospels, which is quite different from today's Christianity.By this holy, sublime, and true religion, mankind, sons and daughters of the same God, realizes that they are all brothers, and that the society that binds them together cannot be dissolved until death.But since this religion has no special relation to the body politic, it leaves the law to rest on its own strength, and can add nothing else to it; therefore one of the most important bonds of a particular society cannot It works again.What is more, far from attaching the citizens wholeheartedly to the state, it separates them from the state, as they do from everything else in the world.I know of nothing more against the spirit of society. We are told that a truly Christian nation would constitute the most perfect society that one could possibly imagine.I see only one great difficulty with this assumption, and that is that a truly Christian society will no longer be a human society. I would even go so far as to say that this hypothetical society, in all its perfection, would never be the most powerful, nor the most enduring.Since it is perfect, it lacks cohesion; its destructive defect lies in its perfection itself. Everyone will do his duty; the people are law-abiding, the chiefs are just and temperate, the magistrates are upright and incorruptible, and the soldiers fear death; there is neither pomp nor luxury here; That's all very well, but let's take a closer look. Christianity is a purely spiritual religion, concerned only with heavenly things; the Christian homeland is not of this world.It is true that a Christian is doing his duty, but he is doing it with a deep, unconcerned mind about his own success or failure.So long as he has a clear conscience, it doesn't matter to him whether everything in the world is good or bad.If the country prospers, he hardly dares to share the public happiness, for he is afraid that he will be proud of the country's glory; if the country declines, he will also bless the hand of God to punish his people. In order for society to be peaceful and harmonious, all citizens without exception must be equally good Christians.But if, unfortunately, any careerist, any hypocrite, such as a Catirina or a Cromwell, appears; Unimpeded.Christian benevolence easily forbids a man to think badly of his neighbor.As soon as the careerist or hypocrite, by some cunning, discovers the art of deceiving the world and usurping a portion of public authority, then he is the embodiment of dignity, and God calls upon men to respect him; God has no power, so God wants people to obey him. If the appointee of this power abuses it, God is punishing his children with the whip.The usurper is intended to be driven out, but that requires disturbance of the public peace, violence, and bloodshed; all of which are alien to Christian meekness.And after all, what does it matter whether we are free or enslaved in this abyss of misery?The fundamental problem is to go to heaven, and resignation is just another means to go to heaven. If foreign war breaks out, the citizens will go to war without embarrassment, none of them will dream of running away; they are doing their duty, but they have no enthusiasm for victory; Better than defeating the enemy.What mattered whether they were victors or vanquished?Does not God know better than they themselves what they ought to be? Just imagine how much a proud and impassioned enemy could benefit from this Stoicism of theirs!Put before this Christian nation face to face those gallant and generous nations, full of love for glory and for their country, imagine your Christian republic face to face with Sparta or Rome; these devout Christians The gangsters would be routed, smashed, and destroyed before they could see clearly; perhaps they would survive, but only because their enemies held them in contempt.The oath of Fabius' soldiers was, in my opinion, a good oath; they did not swear to die or to conquer, but they swore to return victorious, and they kept their oath.Christians would never do such a thing, they would think it was testing God. However, I am already mistaken when I speak of a Christian republic; for the two terms are mutually exclusive.Christianity preaches only slavery and obedience.Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that tyranny cannot but benefit from it constantly.True Christians are made to be slaves; they know it, but are almost indifferent to it; this short life is too worthless in their eyes. We are told that the Christian army is excellent.I deny it; let them point it out to me.As for me, I don't know of any Christian army at all.Someone will point me to the crusaders.There is no need to argue here about the bravery of the crusaders, but I will simply point out that the crusaders, far from being Christians, were priests' soldiers, they were citizens of the church; they were fighting for their spiritual state, but the spirit But somehow the Church has made the country of the earth earthly.When this is well understood, it goes back to paganism; the Gospels never establish any national religion, so that among Christians no holy war of any kind is possible. Under the pagan emperors, Christian soldiers are valiant; all Christian writers affirm this, and I believe it; but it was a contest of honor against pagan armies.Since the emperor became a Christian, this rivalry ceased to exist; and when the cross drove out the eagle, all the martial spirit of Rome disappeared. Leaving aside, however, political considerations, let us now return to the question of rights; and let us fix our principles on this important point.The right of the Sovereign to rule over his subjects, which the social convention confers on the Sovereign, can never, as I have said, go beyond the bounds of the public interest.Therefore, the opinions of the subjects should be obeyed by the sovereign, only those opinions that are important to the collective.But it is of great importance to the state that every citizen should have a religion, which may make him love his duties.But the dogma of this religion is only insofar as it concerns morals and duties which those who profess the religion must fulfill to others themselves, are incompatible with the state and its member related.Moreover, each may have his own opinion which he pleases, and the Sovereign has nothing to do with these opinions.For since the sovereign is powerless over the other world, so long as the subjects are good citizens in this life, it is no business of the sovereign whatever their fate may be in the world to come. There would therefore be a declaration of purely civil faith, the terms of which should be prescribed by the Sovereign; not strictly as religious dogmas, but only as social sentiments, without which a man would be neither It is impossible to be a good citizen, and it is impossible to be a loyal subject.It cannot compel anyone to believe in them, but it can expel anyone who does not believe in them; it can expel such people, not because they are godless, but because they are antisocial, because they cannot be sincere Love the law and justice, and it is impossible to sacrifice one's life to fulfill one's duty when necessary.But if a man has professed these dogmas, and he behaves as if he did not believe them, he should be condemned to death; for he has committed the greatest crime, he has lied before the law. The dogmas of a civil religion should be simple, with few clauses and precise words, without exposition and commentary.The existence of an Almighty, Wise, Benevolent, Prophet and Holy God, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the law—these are the positive dogmas.As for the opposite dogma, I confine it to one, that of intolerance; and it comes within the sphere of religious worship which we have rejected. My opinion is that those who distinguish political intolerance from theological intolerance are mistaken.These two intolerances are inseparable.We cannot live in peace with those whom we think are destined for hell, and to love them is to hate the God who punishes them; we must absolutely either save them or torture them.Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it is impossible not to have some political effect.And as soon as theological intolerance has had this effect, the Sovereign ceases to be Sovereign, even temporally; the priest is then the real master, and the king is only the priest's official. Now that there is no longer, nor can there be, an exclusive state religion, we should tolerate all religions which tolerate other religions, so long as their dogmas do not in the least violate the duties of citizenship.But whoever dares to say that save no one but the Church, he ought to be expelled from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the Prince the Higher.Such a dogma, good only under theocracy, is poisonous under all other governments.The grounds on which Henry the Fourth is said to have accepted the papacy should have driven all righteous men out of it, and above all every thoughtful prince. Chapter 9 Conclusion Having formulated the true principles of political right and tried to ground the state on it, it remains how to support it through its foreign relations; this includes international law, commerce, the rights of war and conquest, public law , alliances, negotiations, treaties, etc.But all this constitutes a new kind of object, too large for my brief treatise, and I shall keep it within my sphere. APPENDIX The Geneva Manuscripts Chapter 2 On Human Society in General Let us first examine where the necessity for political institutions comes from. Man's powers are so proportioned to his natural needs and to his original state, that however slight a change of this state and an increase of this need may be, he needs the assistance of his fellows; and when his desires at last When it comes to annexing the entire natural world, it would be difficult for all human beings to satisfy them.It is this very cause which makes us evil, thus making us slaves, and enslaving us by corrupting us.Our frailty of sentiments is not so much from our nature as from our greed; as our passions divide us, our needs draw nearer to us; the more we become enemies of our own kind, the more we There is no way to guard against them.Here is the first bond of society in general; here is the foundation of that fraternity by which familiar necessity seems to stifle our sentiments, and at the same time every one wants to reap its fruits without nurturing.As far as the identity of nature is concerned, it has nothing to do with it; for it is a subject of strife and union for men alike, and it always sows among men both rivalry and envy, It also sows wisdom and harmony. From this new order of things arose an inestimable, irregular, and capricious mass of relations, which men are always changing; Individuals try to overthrow them.Since in the state of nature a man's relative existence depends on a thousand other relations which are constantly changing, there can never be two moments in his life which are certainly the same; It is but a flash to him; nothing lasts forever but the misery caused by all such vicissitudes.When his sentiments and his thoughts can rise to the love of order and the lofty moral conception, he can never use it accurately in a state of things that makes him indistinguishable from good and bad, and good from evil. own principles. Thus a general society, such as may arise from our mutual need, can never be an effective aid to those who are in misery; New strength will be given, while the vast number of neglected, suffocated, oppressed weak can find no shelter, their fragility will have no support, and they will eventually become what they once hoped to be able to make A victim of that deceitful union of one's own happiness. [If one is once convinced that there is nothing in the motives which unite men to one another by voluntary ties to be concerned with solidarity; that the happiness of the one is the misfortune of the other; and if it be seen at last that their nearness to one another does not lead all to a general good, but only because all are estranged from one another; It will be felt that, even if such a state could be sustained, it would be but a source of evil and misery for mankind, each of whom sees only his own advantage, and therefore follows only his own intentions and all Only listen to your passions. ] Thus the sweet voice of nature is no longer an infallible guide to us, and the independence which we have acquired of it is no longer a desirable state; peace and innocence, long before we Before you can taste their delicacy, you will miss it forever.The happy life of the golden age, which was not felt by the ignorant people of the primitive age, and missed by the civilized people of later generations, will always be a strange state for mankind; It is possible to enjoy it without knowing it, or to lose it when it is possible to know it. And more: this complete independence and this liberty without law, even if it is always combined with ancient innocence, is ultimately a fundamental evil, and detracts from the best of us. progressive of faculties; that is, it lacks the connection of the parts which make up the whole.The earth can be overgrown with human beings, and there is scarcely any communication between them; we can touch one another at some points, but no point can unite us; each man is always alone among others, each We think only of ourselves; our understanding is undeveloped; we live without feeling, we die without living; There is no virtue in our actions; we shall never taste the sweetest sentiment of the soul,--that is the love of virtue. [Indeed, the term human beings merely furnishes the mind with a purely collective idea, without assuming any real union among the individuals who constitute a human being.We may, if we like, add this hypothesis: Let us imagine that man, as a moral personality, is endowed with a sentiment of common existence, which gives him individuality and constitutes him as an individual; A universal drive that sets the parts into motion for a general purpose related to the whole.Let us imagine that this common sentiment is also the sentiment of humanity, and that the laws of nature are the operating principle of the whole machine.Let us then observe what will result from this system of man in this relation to his fellow beings.和我们想象的完全相反，我们将发现：社会的进步会唤醒个人的利益而窒息内心里的人道；自然法则（倒不如应该称之为理性法则）的概念是唯有当激情的事先发展使得它那全部的教诫都无能为力的时候，才会开始发展起来的。由此可见，大自然所颁布的这种所谓的社会条约，乃是一幕道地的幻景；因为它那些条件是永远认识不了的或者是不能实现的，所以我们就必须是漠视它们或者是抗拒它们。 〔假如普遍社会存在于什么地方，而不是存在于哲学家的体系里；那末，正如我所说过的，它就会是一个道德的生命，有着它自身固有的品质而与构成它的那些个体生命的品质截然不同，有点象是化合物所具有的特性并非得自构成化合物的任何一种混合物那样。大自然教给一切人的，就应该有一种普遍的语言，那将是人们互相交通的普遍工具；就应该有一种共同的神经中枢，可以用于所有各部分之间的通讯。公共的利害就不权仅是个人利害的总和，象是在一种简单的集合体里那样，而应该说是存在于把他们结合在一起的那种联系之中；它会大于那种总和；并且远不是公共福祉建立在个体的幸福之上，反而是公共福祉才能成为个体幸福的源泉。〕在独立状态中，理性根据我们自身利益的观点就会引导着我们汇合成为公共的福利；这种说法乃是错误的。个人利益远不是和普遍的福利结合在一起，反而在事物的自然秩序之中它们是彼此互相排斥的；社会法则乃是一种羁轭，每个人都想把它加之于别人，却不肯加之于自己。被智慧所蒙蔽的独立人会说：“我觉得自己在人类中间耽惊受苦；只好是要末我自己不幸，要末我就使别人不幸。而最爱我的人，莫过于我自己了。”他还可以补充说：“要想调和我自己的利益和别人的利益，那是枉然。你对我说的有关社会法则的好处的一切话，都可能是好话；假如我对别人严格遵守时，我确有把握他们也会对我遵守。然而在这一点上，你能给我什么确切保证呢？并且看到自己暴露在最强者所可能加之于我的各种祸害之下，而我又不敢取偿于弱者；难道我的处境还能有比这更糟的了吗？要末就给我保证，决不会发生任何不公正的事情；要末就别指望在我这方面有什么克制。尽管你很可以向我说：放弃了自然法则所加之于我的义务，我也就同时被剥夺了它那权利，并且我的暴行也就批准了别人所可能对我施加的一切暴行。但我却更愿意承认，我根本看不出我的节制怎么就能够对我做出保证。何况和强者一道瓜分弱者，使强者有利于我，那也是我的事；那要比正义更加有利于我的利益和我的安全”。明智而独立的人之所以这样推论，其证据就是一切主权社会都是这样推论的，它们的行为都是只顾它们自己的。 对于这类言论能有什么坚强的答复呢？——假如我们不想用宗教来帮助道德，并使上帝的意旨直接参预人类社会的联系的话。然而智者们有关上帝的崇高概念、它所加之于我们的那些美妙的博爱法则、构成它所要求于我们的那种真正宗教崇拜的灵魂纯洁的种种社会德行，总是脱离群众的。人们总要把他弄成一个就象他们自己一样冥顽不灵的上帝，他们好向他供献上一些廉价的商品，好以他的名义来保证自己能沉湎于千百种可怕的、破坏性的激情里面去。假如哲学和法律约束不了狂热主义的怒焰，假如人的声音并不比上帝的声音更强；那末整个大地就会血流成河，全人类也就会转瞬灭亡的。 事实上，如果至高者的观念以及自然法则的观念，乃是每个人内心生来固有的；那么他们之间要公开互相进行教导，就成为一场完全多余的操心了。那就会是把我们已经知道的东西再教给我们，而人们所采取的那种方式倒是更适于使我们把它忘掉的。倘若不是那样；那末根本就不曾被上帝赋予过这些东西的所有这些人，也就无须知道它们了。一旦为此而需要有某些特殊的教诫时，每个民族就都会有其自己的教诫，人们还可以证明那对他们乃是唯一良好的教诫；但由此而来的却往往更多的是屠杀和谋害，而不是一致与和平。 因而，就让我们把各种不同的宗教诫命都搁在一旁吧，滥用它们所造成的罪行并不亚于运用它们之可以免除罪行；这个问题神学家从来都只是诉之于人类的偏见的，现在就让我们交给哲学家来审查吧。 可是哲学家又把我送回到了人类本身的面前，唯有人类才能做出决定来，因为全体的最大幸福也就是他们所具有的唯一热情。他们会向我说，正是公意才是个人所应该请教的，为的是能懂得他应该作一个人、一个公民、一个臣民、一个父亲、一个孩子各到什么程度，以及什么时候适合于他的生和死。我们的独立人会说：“我承认，我在其中确实看到了我可以谘询的准则，但是我还没有看出使我应该服从这种准则的理由。问题不在于教导我什么是正义；问题在于向我指明，我作人公正就会有什么好处。”事实上，假如公意就是每个个人纯理智的行为，它能在激情平静的时刻对于一个人所可能要求于自己同类的、以及自己同类有权要求于自己的事物进行推论；那就万事大吉了。可是哪里会有能够这样地自己摆脱自己的人呢？而且，假如他关怀着保存自己本身就是大自然的首要教诫，难道我们就能够强其他也这样地普遍看待全物种，从而把他根本就看不出和自己的个体组成有任何联系的各种义务也都加之于自己本身吗？以上的反驳不是永远都存在的吗？他的个人利益为什么就要求他必须使自己服从于公意，这一点不是也还得等着看吗？ 此外还有：这样概括出自己的观念来的艺术，既然是人类理智最艰难而又最迟缓的一种运用；那末是不是人类的共同点就永远也无法从这种推论方式中得出自己行为的准则了呢？并且，当一桩具体行动需要请教公意时，一个用意良好的人又有多少次会在准则上或者在运用上犯错误，而在自以为服从法则时却只不过是在追随自己的倾向啊！然则，他又怎么才能保证自己不会错误呢？他将谛听内心的声音吗？可是人们说，那种声音无非就是由社会内部的判断习惯和感觉习惯所形成的，并且是根据社会法则的；因而那就不能有助于确定它们。然后，又必须在他的内心里并没有涌现出任何那类的热情，其声调竟高出于良心之上，淹没了他那怯弱的声音，从而使得哲学家们能坚持认为那种声音是并不存在的。他将谘询成文的权利原理、各个民族的社会行为、人类敌人的默契约定本身吗？我们终归又回到最初的难题上来，而且它不外是我们根据自己的想象而籀绎出其观念并在我们中间所奠定的那种社会秩序而已。我们是按照我们的特殊社会在设想普遍社会的；小共和国的建立使我们梦想着大的；而我们都只不过是在成为公民之后，才真正开始变成人的。由此我们就可以看出应该怎么样来看待这些所谓的世界公民了；他们以自己爱全人类来证明自己爱祖国，他们自诩爱一切人，为的是可以有权不爱任何人。 推理在这方面向我们所指明的，已经完全被事实所证实；我们只消略微回顾一下远古，就很容易看到：对于自然权利的以及对于人人所共有的博爱的健全观点，是很晚的时候才传播开的，并且它们在世界上进展得那么缓慢，以致于只是到了基督教才把它们充分歧及的。我们就在查士丁尼的法律中也发现，古代的暴力在许多方面都是得到认可的，不仅仅是对于已经被宣布的敌人，而且还对于凡不属于帝国臣民的一切人；因而罗马的人道，并不比他们的统治权伸展得更远。 事实上，正如格老秀斯所指出的，人们长时期都在相信他们可以被允许去盗窃、掠夺、虐待异邦人而尤其是野蛮人，直到把这些人转化为奴隶。由此而来的是：人们总要问不相识的人是不是贼匪或海盗，而并不会冒犯他们；因为这种行业在当时远不是不光彩的，反而被当作是荣誉的。最早的英雄们，如赫居里士和德修斯，是在向贼匪作战，所以自己才不肯也进行盗劫；而希腊人则经常是把那些根本并不处于交战中的民族所订的条约都称为和平条约的。对许多古代民族来说，甚至于对拉丁人来说，异邦人和敌人这两个名词长期以来就是同义词。西赛罗说：ＨｏｓｔｉｓｅｎｉｍａｐｕｄｍａｊｏｒｅｓｎｏｓAｔｒｏｓｄｉｃｅｂａｔｕｒ，ｑｕｅｍｎｕｎｃｐｅｒｅｇｒｉｎｕｍｄｉｃｉｍｕｓ．（“凡是曾被我们大多数称为陌生人的，我们现在就称为异邦人”）。因此，霍布斯的错误并不在于他在独立的但已变成了社会人的人们中间确立了战争状态，反而在于他对人类假设了那种自然状态，并且把本来是罪恶的结果当成了罪恶的原因。 然而，尽管人与人之间根本就不存在什么自然的和普遍的社会，尽管他们成为社会人的时候变得十分不幸而又作恶多端，尽管正义和平等的法则对于那些既生活于自然状态的自由之中而同时又屈服于社会状态的需要之下的人们来说，全都是空话；但是千万不要以为我们就不会有德行和幸福了，上天已经把我们无可救药地遗弃给人类的腐化了。让我们努力哪怕是从坏事里面，也要汲取出能够医治人类的补救办法吧。让我们，如其可能的话，以新的结合来纠正普遍结合的缺点吧。但愿我们激烈的提问人能够以成就来评判他自己吧。让我们以完美的艺术向他指出对于艺术开始给自然所造成的灾祸的那种补偿吧；让我们向他指出他所相信其为幸福的那种状态的全部悲惨、他所相信其为健全的那种推论的全部谬误吧。但愿他从事物的更美好的体制里，能看到善良行为的代价、对坏事的惩罚以及正义与幸福那种可爱的一致吧。 让我们以新的知识来开导他的理性，以新的情操来炙暖他的心灵吧；但愿他在和他的同类分享自己的生存和福祉时，能学会成倍地增长它们吧。假如我的热诚在这件事情上并没有使我盲目的话，那末就丝毫不必怀疑，有了强劲的灵魂和正直感，那位人类之敌就终于会放弃他的仇恨及其错误的，引他误入岐途的那个理性是会重新把他带回到人道上来的；他就能学会喜爱自己已经很好地理解到的利益更有甚于自己的表面利益的；他就会变得善良、有德、明智，并且归根到底就会变成一支他想成为的慓悍队伍，就会变成一个秩序良好的社会的最坚固的支柱的。