And so, however
iniquitous the subject may think the commonwealth's decisions, he is
none the less bound to execute them.
6. But (it may be objected) is it not contrary to the dictate of reason
to subject one's self wholly to the judgment of another, and
consequently, is not the civil state repugnant to reason? Whence it
would follow, that the civil state is irrational, and could only be
created by men destitute of reason, not at all by such as are led by it.
But since reason teaches nothing contrary to nature, sound reason cannot
therefore dictate, that every one should remain independent, so long as
men are liable to passions (Chap. II. Sec. 15), that is, reason
pronounces against such independence (Chap. I. Sec. 5). Besides, reason
altogether teaches to seek peace, and peace cannot be maintained, unless
the commonwealth's general laws be kept unbroken. And so, the more a man
is guided by reason, that is (Chap. II. Sec. 11), the more he is free,
the more constantly he will keep the laws of the commonwealth, and
execute the commands of the supreme authority, whose subject he is.
Furthermore, the civil state is naturally ordained to remove general
fear, and prevent general sufferings, and therefore pursues above
everything the very end, after which everyone, who is led by reason,
strives, but in the natural state strives vainly (Chap. II. Sec. 15).
Wherefore, if a man, who is led by reason, has sometimes to do by the
commonwealth's order what he knows to be repugnant to reason, that harm
is far compensated by the good, which he derives from the existence of a
civil state.
Pages:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34