友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
九色书籍 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

the science of right-第25章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!




overthrow of his country may be punished; as a political parricide;

even with death。 It is the duty of the people to bear any abuse of the

supreme power; even then though it should be considered to be

unbearable。 And the reason is that any resistance of the highest

legislative authority can never but be contrary to the law; and must

even be regarded as tending to destroy the whole legal constitution。

In order to be entitled to offer such resistance; a public law would

be required to permit it。 But the supreme legislation would by such

a law cease to be supreme; and the people as subjects would be made

sovereign over that to which they are subject; which is a

contradiction。 And the contradiction becomes more apparent when the

question is put: 〃Who is to be the judge in a controversy between

the people and the sovereign?〃 For the people and the sovereign are to

be constitutionally or juridically regarded as two different moral

persons; but the question shows that the people would then have to

be the judge in their own cause。



  The dethronement of a monarch may be also conceived as a voluntary

abdication of the crown; and a resignation of his power into the hands

of the people; or it might be a deliberate surrender of these

without any assault on the royal person; in order that the monarch may

be relegated into private life。 But; however it happen; forcible

compulsion of it; on the part of the people; cannot be justified under

the pretext of a right of necessity (casus necessitatis); and least of

all can the slightest right be shown for punishing the sovereign on

the ground of previous maladministration。 For all that has been

already done in the quality of a sovereign must be regarded as done

outwardly by right; and; considered as the source of the laws; the

sovereign himself can do no wrong。 Of all the abominations in the

overthrow of a state by revolution; even the murder or assassination

of the monarch is not the worst。 For that may be done by the people

out of fear; lest; if he is allowed to live; he may again acquire

power and inflict punishment upon them; and so it may be done; not

as an act of punitive justice; but merely from regard to

self…preservation。 It is the formal execution of a monarch that

horrifies a soul filled with ideas of human right; and this feeling

occurs again and again as of as the mind realizes the scenes that

terminated the fate of Charles I or Louis XVI。 Now how is this feeling

to be explained? It is not a mere aesthetic feeling; arising from

the working of the imagination; nor from sympathy; produced by

fancying ourselves in the place of the sufferer。 On the contrary; it

is a moral feeling arising from the entire subversion of all our

notions of right。 Regicide; in short; is regarded as a crime which

always remains such and can never be expiated (crimen immortale;

inexpiabile); and it appears to resemble that sin which the

theologians declare can neither be forgiven in this world nor in the

next。 The explanation of this phenomenon in the human mind appears

to be furnished by the following reflections upon it; and they even

shed some light upon the principles of political right。

  Every transgression of a law only can and must be explained as

arising from a maxim of the transgressor making such wrong…doing his

rule of action; for were it not committed by him as a free being; it

could not be imputed to him。 But it is absolutely impossible to

explain how any rational individual forms such a maxim against the

clear prohibition of the law…giving reason; for it is only events

which happen according to the mechanical laws of nature that are

capable of explanation。 Now a transgressor or criminal may commit

his wrong…doing either according to the maxim of a rule supposed to be

valid objectively and universally; or only as an exception from the

rule by dispensing with its obligation for the occasion。 In the latter

case; he only diverges from the law; although intentionally。 He may;

at the same time; abhor his own transgression; and without formally

renouncing his obedience to the law only wish to avoid it。 In the

former case; however; he rejects the authority of the law itself;

the validity of which; however; he cannot repudiate before his own

reason; even while he makes it his rule to act against it。 His maxim

is; therefore; not merely defective as being negatively contrary to

the law; but it is even positively illegal; as being diametrically

contrary and in hostile opposition to it。 So far as we can see into

and understand the relation; it would appear as if it were

impossible for men to commit wrongs and crimes of a wholly useless

form of wickedness; and yet the idea of such extreme perversity cannot

be overlooked in a system of moral philosophy。

  There is thus a feeling of horror at the thought of the formal

execution of a monarch by his people。 And the reason it is that;

whereas an act of assassination must be considered as only an

exception from the rule which has been constituted a maxim; such an

execution must be regarded as a complete perversion of the

principles that should regulate the relation between a sovereign and

his people。 For it makes the people; who owe their constitutional

existence to the legislation that issued from the sovereign; to be the

ruler over him。 Hence mere violence is thus elevated with bold brow;

and as it were by principle; above the holiest right; and; appearing

like an abyss to swallow up everything without recall; it seems like

suicide committed by the state upon itself and a crime that is capable

of no atonement。 There is therefore reason to assume that the

consent that is accorded to such executions is not really based upon a

supposed principle of right; but only springs from fear of the

vengeance that would be taken upon the people were the same power to

revive again in the state。 And hence it may be held that the

formalities accompanying them have only been put forward in order to

give these deeds a look of punishment from the accompaniment of a

judicial process; such as could not go along with a mere murder or

assassination。 But such a cloaking of the deed entirely fails of its

purpose; because this pretension on the part of the people is even

worse than murder itself; as it implies a principle which would

necessarily make the restoration of a state; when once overthrown;

an impossibility。

  An alteration of the still defective constitution of the state may

sometimes be quite necessary。 But all such changes ought only to

proceed from the sovereign power in the way of reform; and are not

to be brought about by the people in the way of revolution; and when

they take place; they should only effect the executive; and not the

legislative; power。 A political constitution which is so modified that

the people by their representatives in parliament can legally resist

the executive power; and its representative minister; is called a

limited constitution。 Yet even under such a constitution there is no

right of active resistance; as by an arbitrary combination of the

people to coerce the government into a certain active procedure; for

this would be to assume to perform an act of the executive itself。 All

that can rightly be allowed; is only a negative resistance;

amounting to an act of refusal on the part of the people to concede

all the demands which the executive may deem it necessary to make in

behoof of the political administration。 And if this right were never

exercised; it would be a sure sign that the people were corrupted;

their representatives venal; the supreme head of the government

despotic; and his ministers practically betrayers of the people。

  Further; when on the success of a revolution a new constitution

has been founded; the unlawfulness of its beginning and of its

institution cannot release the subjects from the obligation of

adapting themselves; as good citizens; to the new order of things; and

they are not entitled to refuse honourably to obey the authority

that has thus attained the power in the state。 A dethroned monarch;

who has survived such a revolution; is not to be called to account

on the ground of his former administration; and still less may he be

punished for it; when with drawing into the private life of a

citizen he prefers his own quiet and the peace of the state to the

uncertainty of exile; with the intention of maintaining his claims for

restoration at all hazards; and pushing these either by secret

counter…revolution or by the assistance of other powers。 However; if

he prefers to follow the latter course; his rights remain; because the

rebellion that drove him from his position was inherently unjust。

But the question then emerges as to whether other powers have the

right to form themselves into an alliance in behalf of such a

dethroned monarch merely in order not to leave the crime committed

by the people unavenged; or to do away with it as a scandal
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!