E4P37S2
Scholium — Part IV
Latin
In appendice partis primæ explicare promisi quid laus et vituperium, quid meritum et peccatum, quid justum et injustum sit. Laudem et vituperium quod attinet, in scholio propositionis 29 partis III explicui; de reliquis autem hic jam erit dicendi locus. Sed prius pauca de statu hominis naturali et civili dicenda sunt. Existit unusquisque summo naturæ jure et consequenter summo naturæ jure unusquisque ea agit quæ ex suæ naturæ necessitate sequuntur atque adeo summo naturæ jure unusquisque judicat quid bonum, quid malum sit suæque utilitati ex suo ingenio consulit (vide propositiones 19 et 20 hujus) seseque vindicat (vide corollarium II propositionis 40 partis III) et id quod amat, conservare et id quod odio habet, destruere conatur (vide propositionem 28 partis III). Quod si homines ex ductu rationis viverent, potiretur unusquisque (per corollarium I propositionis 35 hujus) hoc suo jure absque ullo alterius damno. Sed quia affectibus sunt obnoxii (per corollarium propositionis 4 hujus) qui potentiam seu virtutem humanam longe superant (per propositionem 6 hujus) ideo sæpe diversi trahuntur (per propositionem 33 hujus) atque sibi invicem sunt contrarii (per propositionem 34 hujus) mutuo dum auxilio indigent (per scholium propositionis 35 hujus). Ut igitur homines concorditer vivere et sibi auxilio esse possint, necesse est ut jure suo naturali cedant et se invicem securos reddant se nihil acturos quod possit in alterius damnum cedere. Qua autem ratione hoc fieri possit ut scilicet homines qui affectibus necessario sunt obnoxii (per corollarium propositionis 4 hujus) atque inconstantes et varii (per propositionem 33 hujus) possint se invicem securos reddere et fidem invicem habere, patet ex propositione 7 hujus partis et propositione 39 partis III. Nempe quod nullus affectus coerceri potest nisi affectu fortiore et contrario affectui coercendo et quod unusquisque ab inferendo damno abstinet timore majoris damni. Hac igitur lege societas firmari poterit si modo ipsa sibi vindicet jus quod unusquisque habet sese vindicandi et de bono et malo judicandi quæque adeo potestatem habeat communem vivendi rationem præscribendi legesque ferendi easque non ratione quæ affectus coercere nequit (per scholium propositionis 17 hujus) sed minis firmandi. Hæc autem societas legibus et potestate sese conservandi firmata civitas appellatur et qui ipsius jure defenduntur, cives; ex quibus facile intelligimus nihil in statu naturali dari quod ex omnium consensu bonum aut malum sit quandoquidem unusquisque qui in statu est naturali suæ tantummodo utilitati consulit et ex suo ingenio et quatenus suæ utilitatis tantum habet rationem quid bonum quidve malum sit, decernit et nemini nisi sibi soli obtemperare lege ulla tenetur atque adeo in statu naturali peccatum concipi nequit. At quidem in statu civili ubi et communi consensu decernitur quid bonum quidve malum sit et unusquisque civitati obtemperare tenetur. Est itaque peccatum nihil aliud quam inobedientia quæ propterea solo civitatis jure punitur et contra obedientia civi meritum ducitur quia eo ipso dignus judicatur qui civitatis commodis gaudeat. Deinde in statu naturali nemo ex communi consensu alicujus rei est dominus nec in Natura aliquid datur quod possit dici hujus hominis esse et non illius sed omnia omnium sunt ac proinde in statu naturali nulla potest concipi voluntas unicuique suum tribuendi aut alicui id quod ejus sit eripiendi hoc est in statu naturali nihil fit quod justum aut injustum possit dici; at quidem in statu civili ubi ex communi consensu decernitur quid hujus quidve illius sit. Ex quibus apparet justum et injustum, peccatum et meritum notiones esse extrinsecas, non autem attributa quæ mentis naturam explicent. Sed de his satis.
English (Elwes 1883)
In the Appendix to Part I. I undertook to explain praise and blame, merit and sin, justice and injustice.
Concerning praise and blame I have spoken in III. xxix. note: the time has now come to treat of the remaining terms. But I must first say a few words concerning man in the state of nature and in society.
Every man exists by sovereign natural right, and, consequently, by sovereign natural right performs those actions which follow from the necessity of his own nature; therefore by sovereign natural right every man judges what is good and what is bad, takes care of his own advantage according to his own disposition (IV. xix. and IV. xx.), avenges the wrongs done to him (III. xl. Coroll. ii.), and endeavours to preserve that which he loves and to destroy that which he hates (III. xxviii.). Now, if men lived under the guidance of reason, everyone would remain in possession of this his right, without any injury being done to his neighbour (IV. xxxv. Coroll. i.). But seeing that they are a prey to their emotions, which far surpass human power or virtue (IV. vi.), they are often drawn in different directions, and being at variance one with another (IV. xxxiii. xxxiv.), stand in need of mutual help (IV. xxxv. note). Wherefore, in order that men may live together in harmony, and may aid one another, it is necessary that they should forego their natural right, and, for the sake of security, refrain from all actions which can injure their fellow--men. The way in which this end can be obtained, so that men who are necessarily a prey to their emotions (IV. iv. Coroll.), inconstant, and diverse, should be able to render each other mutually secure, and feel mutual trust, is evident from IV. vii. and III. xxxix. It is there shown, that an emotion can only be restrained by an emotion stronger than, and contrary to itself, and that men avoid inflicting injury through fear of incurring a greater injury themselves.
On this law society can be established, so long as it keeps in its own hand the right, possessed by everyone, of avenging injury, and pronouncing on good and evil; and provided it also possesses the power to lay down a general rule of conduct, and to pass laws sanctioned, not by reason, which is powerless in restraining emotion, but by threats (IV. xvii. note). Such a society established with laws and the power of preserving itself is called a State, while those who live under its protection are called citizens. We may readily understand that there is in the state of nature nothing, which by universal consent is pronounced good or bad; for in the state of nature everyone thinks solely of his own advantage, and according to his disposition, with reference only to his individual advantage, decides what is good or bad, being bound by no law to anyone besides himself.
In the state of nature, therefore, sin is inconceivable; it can only exist in a state, where good and evil are pronounced on by common consent, and where everyone is bound to obey the State authority. Sin, then, is nothing else but disobedience, which is therefore punished by the right of the State only. Obedience, on the other hand, is set down as merit, inasmuch as a man is thought worthy of merit, if he takes delight in the advantages which a State provides.
Again, in the state of nature, no one is by common consent master of anything, nor is there anything in nature, which can be said to belong to one man rather than another: all things are common to all. Hence, in the state of nature, we can conceive no wish to render to every man his own, or to deprive a man of that which belongs to him; in other words, there is nothing in the state of nature answering to justice and injustice. Such ideas are only possible in a social state, when it is decreed by common consent what belongs to one man and what to another.
From all these considerations it is evident, that justice and injustice, sin and merit, are extrinsic ideas, and not attributes which display the nature of the mind. But I have said enough.
Modern English
In the Appendix to Part 1 I undertook to explain what praise and blame, merit and sin, just and unjust are. Regarding praise and blame I explained this in the Scholium of E3P29. Now is the place to treat the remaining terms. But first I must say a few words about the natural condition of humanity and about civil life.
Everyone exists by the highest right of nature, and consequently by the highest right of nature everyone acts as the necessity of his own nature requires. Therefore by the highest right of nature everyone judges what is good and what is bad, consults his own advantage according to his own disposition (E4P19), avenges injuries done to him (E3P40C2), and strives to preserve what he loves and destroy what he hates (E3P28). If human beings lived under the guidance of reason, everyone would possess this right of his without causing any harm to another (E4P35C1). But because they are subject to affects (E4P4C) that far surpass human power or virtue (E4P6), they are often pulled in different directions (E4P33), are contrary to one another (E4P34), and stand in need of mutual assistance (E4P35S). In order for human beings to be able to live in harmony and assist one another, it is therefore necessary that they yield their natural right and make one another secure by pledging to do nothing that can harm another.
How this can be achieved, so that human beings, who are necessarily subject to affects (E4P4C), inconstant and variable (E4P33), can give each other mutual security and mutual trust, is shown at (E4P7) and at (E3P39): namely, that no affect can be restrained except by a stronger affect contrary to the one being restrained, and that each person refrains from causing harm out of fear of a greater harm. On this basis a society can be established, provided that it keeps in its own hand the right that each person has to avenge himself and to judge good and bad, and provided also that it has the power to prescribe a common rule of life, to enact laws, and to secure these not by reason — which cannot restrain the affects (E4P17S) — but by threats. Such a society, secured by laws and the power of self-preservation, is called a civil order, and those defended by its right are called citizens.
From all this we easily understand that in the natural condition there is nothing that by common consent is good or bad, since everyone in the natural condition consults only his own advantage and judges what is good or bad according to his own disposition, having regard solely to his own advantage and being bound by no law to obey anyone but himself. In the natural condition, therefore, sin cannot be conceived. In the civil condition, however, where it is decided by common consent what is good and what is bad, and each person is bound to obey the civil order, sin is nothing other than disobedience, which is therefore punishable only by the right of the civil order. Obedience, by contrast, is accounted merit to the citizen, because by it he is judged worthy to enjoy the advantages of the civil order.
In the natural condition no one is by common consent the owner of anything, nor is there anything in nature that can be said to belong to this person rather than to that; all things belong to all. In the natural condition, accordingly, no will can be conceived to render to each his own or to take from someone what is his, that is, in the natural condition nothing is done that can be called just or unjust. In the civil condition, however, where it is decided by common consent what belongs to this person and what to that other, these terms have meaning. From all this it is clear that just and unjust, sin and merit, are extrinsic notions, not attributes that explain the nature of the mind. Enough on these matters.