Chapter 9 Part II - 2

In fact, it is not necessary to say so much to seduce those gullible rough people. Besides, there are many disputes to be resolved between them, and there must be people who judge right and wrong; There is no master.So all went to meet their chains, believing that it would secure their freedom.Because people are sensible enough to perceive the benefits of a political system, but not experienced enough to foresee its dangers.And those who can best foresee evil are those who expect to profit from it; and even those who are wise think that they should resolve to sacrifice a part of their liberty in order to preserve another, like a wounded man. Cut off an arm to preserve the rest of the body.

This is how society and law originated or should be.They put new shackles on the weak and new strength on the rich;[18] they annihilated for ever natural liberty so that it could never be restored; , turning plunder and plunder into an irrevocable right; from then on, for the benefit of a few careerists, the entire human race was driven to endure toil, slavery and poverty.We can easily see how the establishment of one society necessitates the establishment of all others; how the rest must also unite in order to resist the combined forces.Society soon multiplied or expanded, and soon covered the whole earth; and there was no corner in the world where men could cast off their shackles, and avoid the sword upon their heads, which Everyone feels perpetually hanging over their heads because they are often mismanaged.Since civil law has become the common rule of citizens, natural law only applies to different societies.Between societies the law of nature is called the law of peoples, and is regulated by certain tacit agreements which make intercourse between societies possible and make up for the loss of the natural compassion which man has lost in society In relation to society it has lost almost all the power it had in relation to man to man, and now exists only in the minds of the great cosmopolitans who have risen above the Impeded by the imaginings of the world, they followed the example of their Creator, and embraced the whole human race in their love.

These political organizations, having thus remained in the state of nature in their relations with one another, soon found themselves compelled to escape from the inconveniences which existed among these enormous political organizations. space is more unfortunate for mankind than it ever existed among the individuals who make up these political organizations.From this arise those national wars, massacres, and reprisals, which shock nature and defy reason, and those terrible prejudices which go so far as to rank the honor of killing and shedding blood as a virtue.The most righteous men have learned to regard it as a duty to kill their own kind.We finally see thousands of people killing each other, and they don't know why.Far more men are slaughtered in one day's fighting; more horrors are wrought in the capture of a city than in a state of nature the whole earth has been killed and wrought in many centuries.This is what we see as the first result of the division of human beings into many different societies.Let us now examine the formation of these societies.

I know that many writers have held other claims concerning the origin of political society, such as the conquest of the strong, or the union of the weak; the choice of these causes is irrelevant to what I have to prove.However, the reasons I have given above seem to me the most natural, namely: (1) In the first case, the so-called right of conquest is not a right, so that no other Right; in the relation between the conqueror and the conquered nation, unless the conquered nation is fully restored to liberty, and will choose its conqueror as its leader willingly, the two are forever at war.Whatever treaties of capitulation may have been made before that time, the very fact that they were based on violence alone doomed them to nullity.On this assumption, therefore, there can be neither real society nor political organization, nor any law but the power of the strong. (2) In the second case, the meaning of the words strong and weak is ambiguous, and the meaning of the words strong and weak is ambiguous. It is more appropriate to use the words "poor" and "rich" to express the meaning.For, indeed, before the law, there was nothing for a man to bring his fellow-men into obedience, except by raiding their property, or giving them a part of his own; Besides, they have nothing to lose, unless they have completely lost their minds, never voluntarily throwing away at no cost what little possession they have left.On the contrary, it may be said that the rich man is sensitive to every part of his property, and that it is extremely easy to injure him; therefore, the rich man must take some precautions with regard to his property; in short, we It is more reasonable to think that a system is invented not so much by those who are harmful to him, but by those who are beneficial to him.

The newly created governing institutions had no fixed and regular form.Lack of philosophy and experience make man only aware of present inconveniences; other inconveniences are only thought of to be corrected when they arise.Notwithstanding all the efforts of the wisest legislators, the political state is always imperfect, because it is almost a product of chance.And because it was unsound from the beginning, time can never remedy the defects of the organization itself, though it can discover its defects and suggest some remedy.Men just go on improving, when they should, as Lycagus did at Sparta, first clear the ground and discard all the old materials, in order to build a new fine edifice.Society is at first organized only by general conventions to which all its members have agreed to observe, and to which the community is bound to guarantee each one.Only when experience shows how fragile such an organization is, and how easily a violator of a convention can escape recognition and punishment for his faults—for his faults can only be witnessed and judged by the public; and only when the inconvenience and confusion continued to multiply did it finally conceive of the risky entrustment of public power to private individuals, and entrusted the execution of popular resolutions to magistrates.For it is a supposition which does not need to be seriously contested, that men have elected their chiefs before they form alliances, and that they have law-executors before they have laws.

If, however, it is supposed that the people will throw themselves unconditionally and forever into the arms of a despotic master, and that the first means of public safety which the fearless and untamed man thinks of is to commit himself to slavery, then It is also unreasonable.In fact, why would they seek out a ruler for themselves if it were not for the protection against oppression, for the protection of property, liberty, and life which, so to speak, constitute the elements of their existence?Moreover, the worst misfortune that can happen to a man in human relations is to see himself at the mercy of another; Wouldn't it be contrary to common sense to voluntarily give up these only things and hand them over to a chief from the beginning?What equal price could the chief give them for the alienation of so precious a right?If he dared to demand the cession of this right under the pretext of protecting them, they would immediately answer him in a sarcastic tone: "The enemy has treated us like this!" The reason why the people have leaders is to To defend one's own liberty, not to enslave oneself, is an indisputable fact, and at the same time the basic maxim of all political law.Pliny once said to the picture truth: We support a king so that he can guarantee that we will not be slaves to any master.

The sophistry of our statesmen about the love of liberty is the same as that of our philosophers about the state of nature.They judge very different things that they have not seen based on things they have seen.Because they see some patiently enduring slavery, they think that there is a natural inclination in men to endure it.It does not occur to them that liberty, like innocence and virtue, is valued only when one enjoys it, and loses interest in it when one loses it.Brasidas said to a Persian governor who compared life in Persepolis with that in Sparta: "I know the happiness of your country, but you will not know the happiness of my country."

The civilized man wears his chains without complaint, to which the savage never yields, and, moreover, he would rather be free in storm than slave in peace; like a tamed horse, patient The man endures the whip and spurs, while an untamed horse bristles its mane as soon as it approaches the bridle and thumps its hooves against the ground violently.The natural inclination to or against slavery should therefore be judged not by the depravity of the enslaved people, but by the astonishing feats of all free peoples in resisting oppression.The former, I know, only continually boast of the peace and tranquility they enjoy under the yoke, when in fact they call peace the most wretched state of slavery.But when I see that the latter kind would rather sacrifice happiness, tranquility, wealth, power, and even life, to preserve their only possession--a property which is so despised by those who have lost it; When I see wild beasts, born free, smash their heads against the bars of their cages in hatred of bondage; At the risk of starvation, fire, sword, and death, I felt that discussing "freedom" was not for slaves.

As for patriarchy, many scholars believe that despotism and society as a whole are derived from patriarchy. We do not need to invoke the opposite arguments of Locke and Sidney, but it is enough to point out the following points: There is no such thing as patriarchy in the world. The moderation of the state is more at odds with the brutality of despotism, for patriarchy is exercised not so much in the interest of those who command, as in the interest of those who obey.According to the law of nature, the father is the master of his children only so long as they need his help.After this period, they are in the same position. Children are completely independent from their fathers, and they only have the duty of respect but not of obedience to their fathers, because repaying kindness is only an obligation to be fulfilled, not a right that can be imposed. .We cannot, therefore, say that civilized society derives from patriarchy, but rather that patriarchy derives its main strength from civilized society.A man is considered the father of his children only in so far as they gather around him.The father's property--he is only the real master of his property--is the bond that maintains his children's subordination to him.He may determine the portion which shall be inherited by each of his children, according to how often they obey his will and perform filial duties.As for the subjects to the tyrant, they could not expect any similar favor, since the subjects themselves and everything belonged to the tyrant, or at least the tyrant thought so, and when the tyrant left them some of his own property, they could not Don't take it as a favor.A tyrant who deprives his subjects is considered justice; a tyrant who keeps his subjects alive is considered a favor.

If we continue to study these facts from the perspective of rights in this way, we will find that the establishment of autocratic politics is based on the voluntariness of the people, which has neither reliable basis nor authenticity.If a contract only binds one party, and all obligations are borne by one party, and the other party has no burden, and the person who is injured is the person who bears the obligation, then it is very difficult to prove the validity of this contract.Nor is this utterly irrational system, even in the present day, that of wise and good princes, and especially of the kings of France.We can see this in many places in their decrees, especially in a famous work published in the name and order of Louis XIV in 1667, where we read:

We should never, therefore, say that a prince is free from the laws of his own country, for the contrary proposition is a truth of the laws of nations, and though this truth is sometimes attacked by flatterers, wise kings are always like Protect this truth like the patron saint of the country.How much more reasonable if we also say, like wise Plato, that the perfect happiness of a kingdom consists in the obedience of the subjects to the king, and the king's obedience to the laws, which are just and always open to the happiness of the public! I don't want to stop writing to study this question: Liberty is the highest of all human abilities Rousseau found this quotation in Barberac.Barberac was in favor of Pufendorf and against Hobbes. He advocated that the king himself should obey the fundamental laws of the country.It is true that a high faculty, in order to please a cruel or mad master, should unreservedly abandon the most precious of all gifts, and submit to his will to commit all the sins which our Creator forbids us to commit. To degenerate human nature, to place oneself on the level of those beasts which are entirely governed by instinct?Is it even an insult to the Creator of his own being?The sublime Creator should be more outraged to see his most beautiful creation destroyed than to see his most beautiful creation insulted.If one wishes, I will not dwell on Barberac's authority.Based on Locke's views, Barberac has stated bluntly that no one can sell his freedom and subject himself to the arbitrary domination of despotic power.He went on to say: Because selling freedom is tantamount to selling one's own life, and no one is the master of his own life.All I want to know is this: What right have men, who are not afraid to degrade themselves so far, to inflict on their posterity the same humiliation, and to forego for them those happiness which they did not bestow?For all people who deserve to enjoy these happiness, without these happiness, life itself becomes a burden. According to Pufendorf, a person can give up his property to others by agreement and contract, and he can also give up his freedom in order to benefit someone else.I think this is a very poor reasoning.For, in the first place, when I have transferred my property to another, it becomes quite irrelevant to me, and if others misuse it, I have nothing to do with it; but they cannot abuse my liberty It doesn't matter, because I can't run the risk of making myself an instrument of a crime without making myself a sinner for the crime that someone forced me to do.Besides, property is nothing but an agreement and an artificial institution, whereby everyone can do what he likes with what he owns.However, the main natural endowments of human beings, life and freedom, cannot be compared with this. These gifts are available to everyone. As for whether one has the right to abandon them, it is at least doubtful.A man who abandons freedom devalues ​​his own existence, abandons life and completely annihilates his own existence.Since no amount of material wealth can compensate for these two things, it is against both nature and reason to abandon life and liberty at any cost.And even though one can give liberty to another as one can give property, the difference between the two is very great to children.The children's enjoyment of the father's property is only transferred from the father's right; and freedom is the endowment they have acquired from nature as human beings, and parents have no right to deprive them of this natural endowment.Nature, then, must be violated in order to establish slavery, just as nature must be altered in order to perpetuate this right.Jurists have solemnly declared that the children of slaves are born slaves, in other words, they also affirmed that people are not born human. So, I think it's safe to say that government didn't start out with despotic power.Despot power is but the result of the corruption of government, the end point of government, which returns government to the power of the strongest, to which government was first established as a remedy.Nay, even if government had begun with despotism, this power, being illegitimate by its nature, could not be the foundation of rights in society, nor could it therefore be an artificial basis of inequality. The nature of the fundamental contract of all government is a question which remains to be discussed, but we shall not go into it today.I follow only a general opinion, and regard the establishment of a political organization as a true contract between the people and their elected chiefs, to observe the laws laid down therein, which form the bond of their union.Since the people have combined their individual wills into a single will in all social relations, all clauses expressing this will simultaneously become the fundamental law binding on all members of the state.One of these fundamental laws also regulates the selection and powers of officials responsible for supervising the enforcement of the other laws.This power can include all functions and powers required to maintain the constitution, but cannot involve changes to the constitution.Moreover, there were established clauses of honour, by which the laws and the officers who enforced them were respected, and privileges were given to them themselves, in return for the hard work which they had to do to run the country well.On the part of officials, they have the following obligations: they must exercise the powers entrusted to them according to the wishes of their principals, they must maintain that everyone can enjoy safely what he has, and they must put the public interest in every case. over personal interests. Until experience proves, or human knowledge makes men foresee, the inevitable abuses of such a constitution, it ought to be the better constitution, since those charged with maintaining it are themselves in conflict with it. has the closest interest in its preservation.The establishment of official positions and the rights of officials are based solely on the fundamental law. Therefore, once the fundamental law is violated, the officials lose their legal status, and the people no longer have the obligation to obey them.And since the essential elements of the constitution of the state are not officials but laws, every individual is of course restored to his natural liberty. This, if we think a little more carefully, is confirmed by some new treatises; and, as regards the nature of the contract, we see that it is not irrevocable.For, if there were no higher power to assure the steadfastness of the contracting parties, to compel them to perform their mutual promises, and the contracting parties remained the sole judges of their own disputes, then, if one of the two When he finds that the other party has violated the terms of the contract or those terms are no longer suitable for him, he has the right to abandon the contract at any time.It is likely that the right to abstain is based on this rationale.However, what we are going to study now is to examine human institutions. It is not difficult to understand that if the officials who hold all the power and appropriate all the benefits of the contract have the right to abandon their powers, then because of the mistakes of the chiefs All the more so should the people who are harmed by such measures have the right to abandon their affiliation.But such a dangerous right is bound to give rise to terrible strife and endless confusion.These strife and confusion are sufficient to show how much the political organization of mankind needs a more solid foundation than mere reason; and how much, for the sake of public tranquillity, a divine intervention is needed to give the supreme power a sacrosanct character. , so as to deprive the subjects of this unfortunate free disposition of the supreme power.Even if religion has its disadvantages, if it does such a beneficial thing to people, it is enough to make people love it and convert to it, because it saves more human blood than is shed by religious fanaticism.But we continue to explore along the lines we assume. The various forms of government have arisen from the differences, greater or less, existing among individuals when they were formed.If there is a single person who is superior in ability, morality, wealth, or reputation, and he alone is elected magistrate, then the country becomes a monarchy.If a number of equals, who are all superior to each other, are elected together, then the country becomes an aristocratic country.If men were not so unequal in their fortunes or talents, and if they were not very far removed from the state of nature, they would together maintain the highest administration and constitute a democratic state.Time has shown which of the various forms of government is the most favorable to mankind.Some always obey only the law; others soon obey their masters.Citizens wish to preserve their liberty; and subjects, unable to suffer others to enjoy what they no longer enjoy, so wish only to deprive their neighbors of their liberty.In short, wealth and conquest on the one hand, and happiness and virtue on the other. In the various forms of government just mentioned, all officials are at first elected.When a man's property conditions are not superior to others, he is elected according to his merits, which give people a natural prestige; cool headed.The "elder" in Hebrew, the "senator" in Sparta, the "senator" in Rome, and even the etymological meaning of what we call a lord, all indicate how old age was formerly respected.The older people are elected, the more frequent and troublesome the elections become.Thus intrigues are born, factions are formed, partisan conflicts are sharpened, civil wars are kindled; and the lives of citizens are at last sacrificed for the so-called happiness of the nation.People were thus again on the eve of the former anarchy.Ambitious dignitaries often take advantage of this situation and keep their positions in the hands of their own families forever.The people have become accustomed to attachment, tranquility, and the ease of life, and they can no longer shake off their shackles; in order to ensure their own peace, they are willing to be enslaved by others.In this way, the hereditary chiefs gradually became accustomed to regard the titles as their own property, and to regard themselves as the owners of the country, whereas at first they were only the official history of the country.Thus they are in the habit of calling their fellow-men slaves, counting these slaves in their property like cattle, and calling themselves kings of kings, equal to the gods. If we observe the progress of inequality through these various changes, we find that the establishment of laws and private property rights is the first stage of inequality; the establishment of official positions is the second stage; and the third stage, namely The final stage is when legal power becomes despotic power.Thus the state of the rich and the poor is sanctioned for the first period; the state of the strong and the weak for the second; the state of the master and the slave for the third.This latter state is the culmination of inequality, and the stage to which the other stages are finally reached, until new revolutions either completely break up the government, or bring it again nearly to a legitimate institution. In order to understand the inevitability of this progress, it is necessary to examine not so much the motives for establishing political organization as the form it actually took, and the inconveniences which attend it.For the same defects which make social institutions necessary are at the same time those which make their abuse inevitable.Leaving aside the sole exception of Sparta - where the law was chiefly concerned with the education of children, Lycagus was there and established a moral climate which did not need the aid of the law - for the law generally said It is weaker than lust, and can only restrain people but not change them. Therefore, it is not difficult to prove that any government, if it is not corrupt and corrupt, and always strictly follows its mission, then this government has no necessary to establish.In a state where no one evades the law, and no official abuses his power, the country needs neither officials nor laws. Differences in politics will inevitably lead to differences among people in society.The growing inequality between the people and their chiefs soon manifested itself between individuals, and took a thousand different forms according to desires, talents, and circumstances.It is impossible for the officials in power to usurp illegal power if they do not install a group of Xiaoxiao and distribute some power to them.Moreover, citizens are oppressed only when they are enticed by a blind greed.They would rather look down than up, and therefore it is more valuable to them to rule than to be independent.They agree to wear the shackles in order to be able to put the shackles on others.It is difficult to compel obedience from a man who would never command; nor can the most ingenious statesman subdue those whose sole desire is liberty.But inequality can easily spread between the ambitious and the cowardly, because they are always ready to take risks, to be in favor of fortune, to rule or to serve, and both of them are of great importance to them. In other words, there is almost no difference.Hence there must have been a time when the people were so deluded that the ruler had only to say to the least of men, "Let you and your people be great men," and he would at once be He looks dignified in front of everyone, and he also feels dignified himself.The farther his descendants are separated from his generation, the more dignified they will be.The more distant and imperceptible the causes of their greatness, the greater their effect; and the greater the number of idlers in a family, the greater the family. If this is the place where the details should be studied, I have no difficulty in stating the point: even without government intervention, inequality of prestige and authority, between individuals, would be unavoidable[19], because As soon as men are socialized, they are compelled to compare with each other, and to note the differences they discover among themselves in their continual mutual use.These differences fall into many categories.But as people generally judge each other chiefly by differences in wealth, title or rank, power, and personal merit, I can attest that this concordance or conflict of forces is the surest sign of how well or poorly organized a nation is. .Of these four inequalities, I may point out, that personal condition is the source of the others, and that wealth is the last.And all kinds of inequality will inevitably be attributed to wealth in the end.As wealth is the most directly conducive to happiness, and the most easily transferred, it is easy to use it to buy all the rest.By this observation we are able to judge exactly how far each nation has come from its original institutions and its progress towards the apex of corruption.I could point out how the universal desire for fame, honor, and privilege, which destroys us all, exercises and pits us against one another for our faculties and strengths; To multiply desires, and how to make all men compete with each other, against each other, or rather to be enemies, to make countless ambitious people pursue the same playing field, and thus cause many failures, successes, and disasters of every kind every day.I can show that it is precisely because of everyone's desire to be admired by others, just because of everyone's almost lunatic desire to be famous all the time, that the best and worst things in the world arise: our virtues and our vices. line; our science and our errors; our conquerors and our philosophers; that is to say, among the few good things there are an infinite number of bad things.Finally, I can prove that the reason why people see a small group of rich and powerful people reaching the pinnacle of wealth, and the masses crawling and moaning in darkness and poverty, is because the former are more interested in everything they have. What others are deprived of is more valuable to them, and if the situation does not change, as long as the people are no longer poor, they will no longer be happy. If we only discuss the above points in detail, we can write a great book.In this work we may weigh the advantages and disadvantages of various governments as opposed to rights in the state of nature.We can also bring to light the different forms of inequality which have hitherto appeared and which will appear in the coming century due to the changes which the nature of government and time necessarily bring about.We shall see the mass of the people oppressed at home by the same measures taken to defend themselves against threats abroad; There is no end to this oppression, and it is not known what lawful means they have left to check it; we shall see the rights of citizens and the liberties of nations diminished, and the demands of the weak regarded as murmurs of rebellion ; we shall see a policy which confines the honor of defending the public interest to a small number of the employed; Years and years, willingly leave the field, and lay down the hoe for the sword; we shall see strange, unfortunate, laws of honour; take up arms against their own countrymen; and finally there will come a time when they can be heard saying to their oppressors at home: If you order me to plunge my sword into my father's chest, piercing my pregnant wife's guts, At last I will carry out your order, though my arms resist. From extreme inequalities of property and social position; from the variety of desires and talents, from unhelpful or harmful technologies and superficial sciences, countless prejudices have arisen.These prejudices are equally against reason, happiness, and morality.We can see: whatever is sufficient to divide and weaken the strength of already united persons; whatever is sufficient to give a society the appearance of harmony while in fact sowing the seeds of division; whatever is sufficient to sow the seeds of division; The leaders deliberately create or instigate such incidents that make people of all ranks suspect and hate each other because of the contradiction of rights and interests, and thus help to subdue all people and strengthen the power of the ruler. It was in this confusion and these revolutions that tyranny gradually reared its hideous head, devoured everything good and sane it found in every branch of the state, and at last came to the point of overthrowing the laws and the people and destroying the republic. The purpose of its dominion was built on the ruins of theThe period preceding this last change must have been one of turmoil and disaster.But in the end, everything is swallowed up by this demon, and the people have neither leaders nor laws, but only tyrants.From this moment on, there is no question of character and virtue.For where despotism rules, no one can hope for anything from fidelity.Despotism does not allow any other masters, as long as it issues orders, there is no room for consideration of morality and duty.The blindest obedience is the only virtue remaining in slaves. Here is the apex of inequality, the final point that closes a circle that meets the beginning from which we started.Here all individuals are equal precisely because they are equal to zero.The subjects have no laws but the will of the prince; the prince has no rules but his own desires.Thus the idea of ​​the good, the principle of justice, disappears again.Here again everything returns to the sole power of the strongest, and thus to a new state of nature.然而这种新的自然状态并不同于我们曾由之出发的那种自然状态，因为后者是纯洁的自然状态，而前者乃是过度腐化的结果。但是，这两种状态之间在其他方面的差别则是那么小，而且政府契约已被专制政治破坏到这种程度，以致暴君只在他是最强者的时候，才是主子；当他被驱逐的时候，他是不能抱怨暴力的。以绞杀或废除暴君为结局的起义行动，与暴君前一日任意处理臣民生命财产的行为是同样合法。暴力支持他；暴力也推翻他。一切事物都是这样按照自然的顺序进行着，无论这些短促而频繁的革命的结果如何，任何人都不能抱怨别人的不公正，他只能怨恨自己的过错或不幸。 曾把人类从自然状态引向文明状态的那些道路已经被人遗忘和迷失了，如果细心的读者这样地去发现和追溯这些道路，并根据我刚才指出的那些中间状况，将我因时间匆促而省略了的、或者因想象力所不及而没有想到的那些状况一一用思考把它恢复起来，他们一定会惊讶自然状态和文明状态之间的距离是多么大。正是在事物的这种缓慢递嬗中，他们将可以找到哲学家们所不能解决的伦理上和政治上的无数问题的答案。他们一定会感觉到：此一时代的人类，不同于彼一时代的人类，狄欧若恩之所以找不到人，是因为他想在他同时代的人中找一个已经不存在的那个时代的人。他们也一定会这样说：加东之所以与罗马和自由同归于尽，是因为生错了时代。假使他在五百年前掌握了统治权，这位最伟大的人恐怕是会震惊世界的。总之，读者们将会说明，人类的心灵和情欲是如何在不知不觉的变坏中，变更了它们的本性。也就是说，为什么时间一久我们的需要和我们的乐趣的对象都有了改变；为什么在原始人逐渐消逝的时候，社会，在贤者看来，只不过是一种失去纯朴本性的人和人为的情欲的集合体，而这样的人和情欲乃是所有新生关系的产物，并没有任何真正的天然基础。在这一问题上，我们由思考而知道的东西，已完全被观察所证实。野蛮人和文明人的内心和意向的深处是如此的不同，以致造成文明人至高幸福的东西，反而会使野蛮人陷于绝望。野蛮人仅只喜爱安宁和自由；他只愿自由自在地过着闲散的生活，即使斯多葛派的恬静②也比不上他对身外一切事物的那样淡漠。相反地，社会中的公民则终日勤劳，而且他们往往为了寻求更加勤劳的工作而不断地流汗、奔波和焦虑。他们一直劳苦到死，甚至有时宁愿去冒死亡的危险，来维持自己的生存，或者舍弃生命以求永生。他们逢迎自己所憎恶的显贵人物和自己所鄙视的富人，不遗余力地去博得为那些人服务的荣幸；他们骄傲地夸耀自己的卑贱，夸耀那些人对他们的保护；他们以充当奴隶为荣，言谈之间，反而轻视那些未能分享这种荣幸的人们。一位欧洲大臣那种繁重而令人羡慕的工作，在一个加拉伊波人看来会作何感想呢？这种悠闲的野蛮人宁愿意多少种残酷的死亡，也不愿过这样一种生活，这种生活之可怕，纵然有施展其抱负的快乐，也往往不能得到缓和！而且那个悠闲的野蛮人要了解如此劳神的目的何在，在他的头脑中就必须先具有权势和名望这些词汇的意义；就必须知道有一种人相当重视世界上所有其余的人对他们的看法，而他们所以认为自己是幸福的人并对自己感到满意，与其说是根据自己的证明，毋宁说是根据别人的证明。实际上，野蛮人和社会的人所以有这一切差别，其真正的原因就是：野蛮人过着他自己的生活，而社会的人则终日惶惶，只知道生活在他人的意见之中，也可以说，他们对自己生存的意义的看法都是从别人的判断中得来的①。至于从这样一种倾向中，为什么会产生对善恶的漠不关心，纵然我们有许多谈论道德的卓越文章；为什么在一切都归结为现象的时候，一切都变为人为的和造作的：荣誉、友谊、美德，甚至恶行也不例外，从这一切中，我们终于发现了炫耀自己的秘诀。总之，尽管我们有那么多的哲学、仁义、礼仪和崇高的格言，为什么我们总问别人自己是怎样一个人，而从不敢拿这一题目来问自己。因此我们只有一种浮华的欺人的外表：缺乏道德的荣誉，缺乏智慧的理性以及缺乏幸福的快乐，要说明这一切，都不在我的主题范围以内。我认为既已证明下列两点也就够了，即：上述情况决不是人类的原始状态；使我们一切天然倾向改变并败坏到这种程度的乃是社会的精神和由社会而产生的不平等。 我已叙述了不平等的起源和进展、政治社会的建立和流弊。我所论述的这些事物，是尽量以仅凭理性的知识就可以从人类本性中推究出来的为限，并未借助于那些对最高权力予以神法上认可的神圣教义。根据我的说明，我们可以断言，在自然状态中，不平等几乎是不存在的。由于人类能力的发展和人类智慧的进步，不平等才获得了它的力量并成长起来；由于私有制和法律的建立，不平等终于变得根深蒂固而成为合法的了。此外，我们还可以断言，仅为实在法所认可的精神上的不平等，每当它与生理上的不平等不相称时，便与自然法相抵触。这种不相称充分决定了我们对流行于一切文明民族之中的那种不平等应持什么看法。因为，一个孩子命令着老年人，一个傻子指导着聪明人，一小撮人拥有许多剩余的东西，而大量的饥民则缺乏生活必需品，这显然是违反自然法的，无论人们给不平等下什么样的定义。