"There Is only one way to finish with practical absoljutizmom is having finished with absoljutizmom metaphysical, with any dogmatism - all the same, materialistic or spiritualistic which applies for knowledge of the absolute blessing." -- Fule
I
Despotism is domination of the person above the person, domination unlimited and supervised only an arbitrariness of the most prevailing. In this wide sense despotism is not extremely political concept, and a general sociological and moral-legal category. Despotism is so possible in the field of personal, family, civil attitudes, however in sphere of the state life. Everywhere it keeps a constant essence, everywhere it means the unlimited, any domination supposing on other party lawlessness and blind obedience. The philosophical substantiation of despotism will consist in an establishment of those basic moral-legal reasons from which the right of unlimited domination and a duty of blind obedience follows; the philosophical criticism of despotism is reduced to criticism of these reasons.
Any positive right what his real roots and philosophical forces supporting it were, from the basic, ideological party leans on any corresponding natural right, is based and justified by the maximum, absolute legitimacy. In what legitimacy of despotism is seen, than the natural right of one person on domination above another can be proved?
The answer to this question did not represent special difficulties to former epoch, before ideological revolution OVIII a century. Domination and submission assumes an inequality between people, their substantiation is reduced to explanation of legitimacy of an inequality in distribution of the rights and duties. For antique consciousness, for an epoch of slavery and national exclusiveness, the idea of an inequality possesses such direct evidence and persuasiveness, that the question on legitimacy of despotism is authorized easily and simply by the reference to a natural inequality of people. A classical sample of a similar substantiation of despotism is reasoning Aristotelja for which the right of domination is defined by a born inequality between the adult and the child, the man and the woman, free and the slave, ellinom and the barbarian. One are given birth to rule, others - to obey. But already the christianity, having exposed, at least, as the moral requirement, idea of a universal brotherhood and, hence, equality of people, has split integrity of an antique substantiation of domination. Since began necessary to find some maximum principle against which domination and an inequality required by him could lean. As this principle that idea of authority which is given by religion serves. The god is the maximum and absolutely unlimited lord, and His authority is distributed to those who is his elects and representatives on the ground. Any authority is designed, as a share or partial reflection of infinite authority of the God; the secular and spiritual authority equally is under construction on this basis, and all dispute on mutual differentiation of their competence is reduced to definition of their affinity to the general source of authority - to the God. The general Christian idea of a brotherhood and equality does not prevent an establishment, on ground of religious idea of authority, complex hierarchy of domination and submission; And at each step of this hierarchy the authority is unlimited, as the authority of the God is unlimited.
But since Russo has risen against this substantiation of authority, having made impudent words: " Any authority from the God; but from him and any illness; whether it means, what it is forbidden to invite the doctor? " - Since in public consciousness the true has been authorized, that any person has no natural authority above itself similar, - the substantiation of despotic domination became difficult, a challenge. Basic equality of people and inadmissibility of despotism became the basic precondition of moral-legal belief, and the idea of despotism should undertake heavy " burden dokazyvanija " the legitimacy. From now on the way to all direct sources of despotism has been cut resolutely off - whether there will be that natural inequality of people, or the idolized talent him of authority and, hence, their inequality concerning their affinity to a metaphysical basis of authority; only derivative sources of despotism proving it, despite of a basic recognition of equality and in the full consent with it became suitable. " Nobody has natural authority above itself similar " neither by virtue of personal advantages, nor by virtue of any maximum sanction which irrespective of the blessing of subordinates, would give such right.
The outlook which is starting with a recognition of equality between people, not admitting that one person in itself could be only the servant and the instrument of another, can count a lawful source of authority only the agreement, the general interest obeying, the highest blessing not the master, and subordinates. From this point of view despotism, i.e. unlimited domination, can have only sense of trusteeship, compulsory management and rukovoditelstva sudboju people in their own interests. It is utilitarian motive gives the strongest and convincing argument for the benefit of despotism, - argument by which in effect always, at least, as an additional reason, any despotism was protected and which has acted on the foreground when other reasons have been cancelled by developed public consciousness.
The despotism understood, as trusteeship as violent realization of the blessing sponsored, is one of the most lasting and steady motives of filosofsko-political idea. The phenomena brought under concept of trusteeship, in general are inevitable in a human hostel: trusteeship of adults above children, reasonable above mad is the attitude all clear, the expediency and which necessity is obvious. That argument which is opposed despotism by defenders of free self-determination of the person,-, that everyone most precisely knows own interests and in the best way can carry out them - in this case is inapplicable. Obviously, there are such distinctions in intellectual and moral abilities of people at which this judgement ceases to be true and when it is necessary that spiritually strong supervised over behaviour weak, even against his will, but in his own interests.
But that in a private life of people is applicable only in unusual cases, can demand much wider application in public work. In fact the problem of a public life will consist in realization not personal, but general welfare, and besides the blessings more or less remote. Unless for this affair humanity does not require heads? Unless everyone equally knows, in what general welfare and how it can be reached? Concerning this general and remote purpose the majority of people - the same children, fatally compelled to entrust destiny to more provident and reasonable instructors. So on ground of an ideal of general welfare, on ground of concept of progress as gradual movement on a way to this ideal, the new powerful support of idea of despotism grows.
Since humanity began to think about the destiny and to search the best future, in human consciousness there lives one treasured, ineradicable dream - dream to bring in consciousness in spontaneous process of vital development, it is reasonable and expedient to set it on a true way, on a place of blind anarchy to establish the order and the organization. Humanity as the unreasonable herd, without idea about a ultimate goal, without knowledge of a way to it, oshchupju goes on road of a life. One aspires to the right, another - on the left, one - forward, another - back; everyone move his own interests, passions, hopes and ideals; and of the chaotic, not settled collision of millions alive essences spontaneously develops build a public life, bezsoznatelno prolagaetsja the way of the movement which have been not prespecified by a nobody's reasonable idea and conscious will. To this condition of anarchy a human idea oppose idea of submission of forces majeure to reasonable will of the person, the same great idea which underlies all technical progress. Similarly to forces of the nature, blind forces of public elements should be pokoreny and are directed to the blessing of the person; the condition of disorder and chaos should be replaced with a condition of the order and the organization at which people could create meaningly the history, following in common to instructions of the reason. This idea of the organization and, so to say, rationalization of a public life, i.e. full submission to its reason and reasonable will of heads, is one of the deepest and most persistent tendencies of social-philosophical idea; in different forms and in a various context of ideas she meets at the diversified thinkers. She forms the central idea of most ancient of social-philosophical systems known to us - Platon's systems; She is equally dear also to Catholicism which dreams of the organization of humanity for realization of heavenly pleasure, and to socialism for which the organization of humanity is necessary for realization of pleasure terrestrial; she makes the basic motive revolutionary jakobinstva and " educated absoljutizma ". Being formal sociological construction, she can contain in herself any maintenance, serve as a conductor and the ally to the most diverse ideals. Not without reason one of the most convinced provozvestnikov this idea, Ogjust Kont, suggested Catholics to incorporate, despite of all disagreements of outlook, with "positivists" in one great party of " organizers of humanity " for joint struggle against all dezorganizujushchimi tendencies.
II
The great idea of the organization of a human hostel, replacement of chaotic anarchy with conscious regularity not only is quite lawful, but leaves one of lasting filosofsko-political ideals. However, taken as the abstract beginning, without the necessary restrictions following from other moral requirements, without consciousness of the difficulties interfering its realization, she gives rise to the original and unilateral system of ideas logically leading to despotism.
The ideal of the organization and association of humanity is resisted with the fact of separation and discrepancy of human views and aspirations. Who is diligent, without prejudiced idea will ponder upon this fact, for that there will be no doubts, that, in a sense, it forms an insuperable barrier for full and more or less fast realization vdeala the organizations. This fact does not belong to number of what could be eliminated by any external receptions or actions; following from the essence of a human nature, it to a certain extent, so to say, is immanent to the most human life; at the best it can disappear or, at least, weaken only as a result of long and gradual process of cultural re-education in spirit of solidarity and edinomyslija. But while it is not present - who can with absolute and for all convincing reliability to specify to people the general ideal and their stories on a true way to it? And meanwhile, in fact it edinomyslie is necessary that the ideal of the organization could receive realization. If any maximum spirit has opened true so that all people have clearly seen her and have firmly believed in it, disagreements and disputes would disappear, and people could be united for one overall aim. Unfortunately, the truth is extracted meneee by true and fast ways, and humanity does not have any external, obvious guarantees or criteria for its definition and recognition. Certainly, everyone has the certain belief, everyone is free to think, that has found true, and to convince all others to adjoin it and to follow it. So it always was and is, but it yet has not brought to destinies of humanity of that order and that expediency of which the idea of the organization dreams. In fact just because everyone counts the views true, the agreement between people is not present, and everyone go various ways. As such blindness as disorder of opinions and the aspirations is burdensome is tragic, turning out as a result of they be they essence the inevitable facts which cannot neither be destroyed, nor to bypass. And while we remain on ground of these facts, we should recognize behind everyone the right to search for true on the way; unique means which can approach us to the true purpose - appears not impr acticable association, and freedom of the personal initiative and spontaneous rivalry of diverse tendencies and directions. Only collective and unorganized creativity of people in which all forces and all directions of spirit can freely affect, can bring even in some light to the darkness shrouding a way to an ideal.
Certainly, the idea of the organization and association of humanity does not lose, due to this, the basic value; she remains an ideal which practical realization depends on natural growth of solidarity between people, from inevitable, though also slow, strengthenings of the basic ideas in consciousness of all. The hope what exactly as a result of free struggle of opinions and views crystallizes some stock of the trues recognized as all which as cement, will merge people in one solidary whole and will enable them to operate unanimously and consequently meaningly is kept. Anyway, however, realization of idea of the organization is transferred, on the long-term future and becomes itself in dependence from unmastered to human will of spontaneous process of cultural development.
However, fanatical and passionate supporters of idea of the organization are completely not inclined to postpone its realization till that time when it will naturally be established edinomyslie between people; on the contrary, they consider possible and necessary immediately to resolve this problem since they do not trust spontaneous process of a social life, namely and want to put to it the end. But how it is possible for making? The opportunity of the systematic organization and rukovoditelstva between people assumes knowledge of the true purpose and a true way to it. Who recognizes a relativity of all human knowledge and, hence, basic ravnopravnost all directions of idea, how we saw, the disagreement between people is an absolute barrier to immediate realization of an ideal of the organization for this disagreement testifies to absence of the first condition of the organization - exact and indisputable knowledge of a final ideal. But this reason is completely unpersuasive and is deprived any force for the one who counts itself possessing absolute true. For the person, it is conscious or bezsoznatelno recognizing or the ideal infallible and absolute, any doubts and fluctuations disappear; all disagreements between people lose in his eyes of the basic value proving freedom of opinion, and are reduced to the simple fact protivorechja between true and lie, between consciousness and ignorance or a prejudice. From this point of view similar disagreements should be overcome by all means and besides only-mechanically. When I see blind, going in the direction of a precipice, I shall try to warn words of belief danger threatening to it; but if it is not possible, I force shall put it on a correct way. Whether not as, in relation to blind human crowd, conscious heads should act her zrjachie? Whether it is possible to look easy at destruction or even aimless wanderings of people when you know a way to their happiness, it is possible and whether it is necessary to wait while people voluntary and will independently come to his consciousness? No, it is necessary to interfere imperously with their destiny and, will or bondage to force them to follow itself!
Undoubtedly, also can be actually proved, that all social systems supervised by idea of the organization, openly or silently lean on a doctrine of infallibility. Catholicism, this most grandiose and rather successful attempt of the organization of humanity openly proceeds from the doctrine of infallibility; for the plan of rescue of humanity Catholic church keeps on its recognition (or its chapter - daddies) the representative of the God on the ground, the infallible carrier of absolute true; and if the doctrine of infallibility has been established rather recently it always served an essence the formal precondition of all Catholic mirosozertsanija. However, any church professing, that she is the unique and perfect representative of Sacred spirit on the ground, in this sense "katolichna", inevitably should count itself infallible and, hence, possessing the right on despotic domination above people.
If we shall take now such theory of the organization which is submitted in socialism we shall see, as here as the silent precondition the idea of infallibility serves. " Anarchy of manufacture " at which everyone makes products at random, not knowing public need in quantitative, in a qualitative sense and which leads to to crises and shocks of a facilities, should be replaced, in opinion of socialism, the systematic economic organization in which the authority would investigate public needs and ordered, in accordance with them, quantity and quality to necessary products. If to start with (recognized as socialism) universality of this economic organization the authority should define manufacture not only bread and clothes, but books, pictures, statues, etc. Obviously, it assumes, that heads of an economic life in accuracy know needs and needs of a society, not only material, but also spiritual, that they are infallible judges of everything that is necessary for a human life.
We will address, at last, to similar "dream" on a basis, idea of skeptical philosopher Renana. The caste of wise men owning a secret of powerful destructive instruments and substances, with the help of this force holds ignorant crowd in blind obedience, supervises over her and iai?aaeyao her on a way of development of humanity and culture. All disputes and contentions are stopped, influence on a public life of fools, ambitious men has disappeared also, any accident and humanity a firm and wise hand has disappeared is directed to the true purpose. It is obvious, that this "dream" amazing with the cruelty and contempt for people and at the same time uvlekajushchaja by the simplicity and logicality, is based upon one silent, the precondition: on an assumption, that " the caste of wise men " is alien lacks, that she is absolutely infallible. For in what this dream if on Wednesday of these wise despots have crept in " human, too human " the phenomena of ignorance, vanity, egoism, etc. particularly would address? Sceptic Renan was left here with Catholicism in an assumption of an opportunity among people and a human society of some infallible instance; with that assumption costs and all falls his "dream".
Thus, the original and deepest precondition of despotism lays in idea of infallibility, in original, to an essence mystical consciousness of possession absolute true. Simple conviction, confidence of the correctness does not give a substantiation to despotism; for conviction does not contradict a recognition behind other people of the right to have the belief. Only that belief which will consist in consciousness of unconditional, superrational, mystical penetration into absolute true, eliminates equality between people and gives the believer the internal right on despotic domination above people. Thus there is no need that mystical character of this belief was soznan the believer; it should be present actually only at consciousness, even and in the involuntary form. Any fanaticism is in essence reduced to such mystical belief; The fanatic can assure itself and others, that his belief are based on clean-rational arguments, and nevertheless psychologically his belief cost most above these arguments and outside of them; they do not submit to rational reasons and do not depend on them, and, on the contrary, the irrational belief looks for to itself corresponding arguments. But any arguments, were not as though strong and convincing they, do not give the person of consciousness of infallibility, unshakable confidence of possession absolute and universal true. This consciousness can be only belief, indecomposable on rational motives, mystical feeling of revelation and an enlightenment. Any despotism if it in general searches the ideological justification, leans finally on idea of infallibility; any infallibility, on the other hand, with logic inevitability leads to to despotism, to the moral justification of compulsory trustees hip wise above mad, zrjachih above blind. Infallibility, so to say, brings to despotism from two parties: ?eeiaae, understanding infallible, with the same right counts itself called to supervise violently over people as people recognizing his this infallibility, count themselves obliged blindly to it to obey. The right of authority and a duty of obedience with an identical acuteness and force confess there where there is any infallible instance. Blind belief and blind obedience essence only the various parties, various displays of the general beginning - feelings of authority, erection of any person, a human affair, the doctrine, a party, religion on absolute and superhuman height. On history of a classical antiquity it would be possible impericheski, the fact behind the fact, to track, as development of despotism and decline of freedom goes together with development of feeling of authority. Medieval despotism as it has already been marked, entirely leans on the maximum, superhuman authority of church and divine authority. But if we will address to the most typical outlook of new time and besides in his most proved and deep form - to idea of democracy, absolute leadership of people or the majority as she is expressed by Russo - that and communication between despotism and idea of infallibility is here completely obviously given. For all substantiation of democratic despotism at Russo openly leans on the statement, that " the general will ", will of the majority, is always infallible. Legality of despotism as systems of compulsory realization of the absolute truth, it has been rather precisely expressed fiziokratami: " Natural laws " should be carried out despotically for they lean on " authority of evidence ". " Evklid the present despot, and those geometrical trues which it has transferred us, predstavljut itself(himself) the present despotic laws ".
Leaving in the party naive mixture of the law as theoretical judgement, with the law as norm or a rule of behaviour, it is possible to tell, that in this instruction the philosophical substantiation of despotism is really latent. If norms and ideals of public consciousness possessed the same evidence, as geometrical axioms, perhaps, despotism was unique the rational form of a social system; and as the belief in these ideals reaches clearness and persuasiveness of mathematical consciousness - that is possible only for irrational-mystical belief - despotism is for it a simple and inevitable consequence.
III
Communication between despotism and idea of infallibility can be understood by the some people more the general moral-philosophical reasons.
The system of moral attitudes and moral mirosozertsanija is defined by two basic motives which are expressed in two evangelical precepts of love to the God and love to near. There are two essentially various areas of morals from which one defines attitudes of the person to the God or the maximum relic, another - attitudes of people among themselves. It is not necessary to think, that only at believers, at religious people, in usual in close sense of a word, there are both specified spheres of morals, that only for the consciousness openly professing the God, both evangelical precepts whereas for "non-believers" last precept is valid only are applicable, and his morals is reduced entirely to norms of the attitude between people. On the contrary, in precepts of love to the God and love to near two eternal, immanent motives of the human morals, working in all people irrespective of their features philosophical or religious mirosozertsanija are expressed. If as the God to understand an ideal, the maximum moral value or an absolute relic each person in general recognizing moral ideals, has a God and the attitude to the God - alongside with the attitude to people and irrespective of him, there are duties to the God, except for duties to people, and, thus, the moral consciousness of each person is divided under the maintenance into two separate and independent spheres.
Build moral attitudes and concepts of these two spheres it is completely various.
Moral attitudes between people are based on a principle of equality (love near as itself). This principle will consist in elimination of everyone neravnestva, any advantage "y" before "you". In morals of attitudes between people, taken in the pure state, there are no gradation, any distinction between the maximum and the lowest. In mutual otnoshenih people should admit in equivalent and equal in rights sizes. All distinctions between wise and silly, kind and malicious have no here value. All of them express various position of people in the attitude to their ideal, their various value in sense of relative affinity to an ideal, but cannot influence morals of attitudes between people for which all people, as such are equal
.The formula of validity (which expression of an equivalence "you" and "y" is only) follows from this equality: I should distract from all my personal interests, sympathies, antipaty, should not attribute him any primary value in comparison with interests and sympathies of all other people, should concern to all people equally, to appreciate and respect them irrespective of their affinity or remoteness from me, from their consent or disagreement with me. From here precepts of love to enemies, peaceful disposition, mildness, etc. All this only displays of the general beginning of equality, a recognition of equal compulsion for each person of the rights of all other people. What I did, to what would not aspire, what the purposes pursued, before me as an absolute barrier, rights of others which I should honour cost and which should concede, hence, in case of the conflict to my interests.
On absolutely other motive the morals of the attitude of the person to the God or the maximum relic is constructed. Here the main principle is submission, the general warehouse of a moral life has character of the attitude between the lowest and the maximum, full feedback of the person on service of the Supreme authority of an ideal. This submission of the person to the God or an ideal can accept the most various shades - starting from human sacrifices before an idol personifying a terrible, vindictive deity, and finishing voluntary feedback of the person on service freely and to joyfully recognized ideal; nevertheless his basic motive there is an attitude of submission and service. All from here follows characteristic build this sphere of morals. Here there is no equality, here, on the contrary, reigns absolute unequality. It - first of all unequality between the God and the person, i.e. between the master and the servant, between the absolute purpose and the individual, private instrument. Besides the original dualism, completely unknown morals of attitudes between people here develops. The god is opposed not only to the person, but also the antipode - to a devil. The concept of goods is impossible without opposite concept of evil, concept of an absolute relic - without respective concept grehovnoti. Therefore the attitude of love to the God and services to it is thus the attitude of hatred to harm and struggle against it. Should all means osushchestvljats kindly, it is angry - to be eradicated. Service to an ideal or the God inevitably accepts character of enmity to forces opposite to it and struggle against them. Thus, alongside with motive of authority and the submission, determining build attitudes to the God, on ground of the same attitude as his compound part, develops motive of enmity and struggle.
Clearly, as far as supervising principles of morals in these its two areas are various. If in morals of the attitude between people ethical concept is the idea of an equivalence and equality in morals of the attitude of the person to the God the opposite principle of an inequality operates, and besides in two senses: a principle of an inequality between the God and the person, expressing concerning authority and submission, and a principle of an inequality between goods and evil, a relic and the sinfulness, expressing in completely various attitudes to these two beginnings - in service to goods and struggle against evil. If in morals of attitudes between people enmity and struggle are always immoral and inadmissible, here, on the contrary, enmity to harm and struggle against it essence the maximum duties. If motives of mildness, peaceful disposition and compliance here, on the contrary, the person is obliged to be unshakable in the service to an ideal, irreconcilable and intolerant in the attitude to forces hostile to these ideal there should operate. If there the agreement between people is moral valuable, then the agreement and compliance can be change to the God.
Taken cleanly is abstract, these two basic and opposite motives of morals can exist peacefully in common just because they concern to completely various spheres: one supervises over the attitude of the person to alive people, another defines his attitude to the abstract ideas, to categories of goods and evil. However, actually in a life there is no that separatness which so can be easily established in the theory. Attitudes to the God and attitudes to the person are closely bound among themselves and consequently can easily enter collisions. In fact service to the God or an ideal is not lonely personal act, it not with is made, so to say, in a vacuum, and carried out together with other people and in their environment. Besides in the maintenance of the ideal subject to realization, enters, as one of his major parts, and the known social system embodying the blessing and eliminating evil. Therefore conflicts between two sorts are natural and inevitable. That person whom I as the person, should respect and which interests I should observe piously in the name of love to near, am simultaneously the opponent of my affair, my ideal, my relic, and in the name of my attitude to the God I should struggle with it, should be irreconcilable to it and persistent in upholding my affair. So there are so often tragical meetings and collisions of duties. As though such conflicts in each separate case, as though difficultly were not resolved was to find sometimes true primirjajushchy an outcome for them - anyway clearly, that two here collide independent and equally primary, i.e. absolutely moral motive, and that hence, any cannot be simple pozhertvovan or is eliminated for the sake of another, and both should be equally taken into account and taken into account on moral weights of consciousness. Such clear consciousness of separatness and independence of these two motives serves as a unique guarantee of the impartial decision of the conflict between them.
Here also fatal value of idea of infallibility for all system moral concept and attitudes is found out. The consciousness of infallibility or possession the absolute truth will be, that the Deity, the maximum ideal, is identified with any concrete person, establishment, with any separate belief, church, party - a word, with any terrestrial, human instance. Time it is accomplished, time the God is shown from the sky on the ground and identified with any terrestrial phenomenon which admits as his absolute and universal representative and olitsetvoreniem - all mechanism of normal moral consciousness at once disfigures oneself. Then collapses and loses any value that morals of equality and an equivalence of people, which as the independent and primary beginning, resists to all morals of the attitude to the God. Then in the field of attitudes between people those principles and norms which are lawful only concerning people to the God start to operate. Within the limits of human attitudes any more the person protivopostoit to the equal in rights person, and an allmighty Deity - to the obedient and obeying person, or - as in the attitude to the God everything, that is not solidary with it, est his opponent - the God resists to a satan. Irreconcilability to harm is done by irreconcilability to people, humanity is broken into two categories separated among themselves by an impassable precipice, on supporters of the God and his opponents, on spirit of true and lie, and all attitudes between them are under construction on motive of enmity and struggle. And simultaneously the motive of authority and submission working in attitudes between the God and the person, also is transferred to attitudes between people. The maximum, ideal authority of a relic or the Deity above the person becomes real authority of the person recognized for his spokesman, above the person; compulsoriness and certainty of domination of an ideal above the person turns to despotism of human attitudes.
Thus, the general and deepest attitude between despotism and and consciousness of infallibility will be, that the idea of infallibility is as though a string thrown through a potential precipice which separates attitudes between people from attitudes of the person to the God. The god is reduced by her on the ground, identified with the person or human instance and by that attitudes of unconditional submission to the God turn to attitudes of blind submission of the person to the person. The despot is always the terrestrial god; and any terrestrial god inevitably is the despot. " Do not create to itself an idol! " - this precept warns, from an identification human and divine; and force of despotism will be really defeated, only when all idols will be overthrown and idolatry will disappear.
From these reasons the true sense of the notorious formula is understood also: " The purpose justifies means ". It is one of those formulas which are condemned by all in the theory and make the big success in practice. It would be wrong to see in it impudent declaration of absolute immorality. On the contrary, for many she is their original expression moral mirosozertsanija, some kind of a categorical imperative, deviation from which is considered an attribute of moral cowardice, inconsistency and cowardice. Really, if to not recognize two, planned above, independent numbers planned above or spheres of morals, if to believe, that realization of an ideal is unique moral motive from which all human duties follow and alongside with which there are no other motives limiting it, - that the formula " the purpose justifies means " will be simple and indisputable expression of a principle of expediency according to which value of means is defined only by his suitability for service of the purpose . Under "purpose" in this aphorism certainly in fact the absolute blessing or the maximum moral ideal. If all morals is under construction on a principle of realization of this ideal any other moral criteria which would forbid to resort to the actions useful to realization of an ideal whence can undertake? Whether will be, opposite abstention from such actions by immorality, default of a duty before the God, i.e. an ideal? Thus, this Jesuit formula is a direct and diligent conclusion from that morals which does not recognize, alongside with service to the God, any absolute duties. When people and human attitudes are considered only as means or a material for a problem of realization of an ideal, - then all on light is appreciated only from the point of view of the advantage or harm for this problem. Otherwise it also cannot be, and a rule " the purpose justifies means " immoral people, and opposite, people the most consecutive and courageous in carrying out moral mirosozertsanija are guided not. It is possible, certainly, only on ground of consciousness of infallibility as which the person or human business recognizes as a deity. The deity is not connected nravstvennmi by laws for it is a criterion of morals: everything is well, that serves it, that goes against him is feel unwell. Iezuitizm there is a practical conclusion from Catholicism.
In one of publicistic clauses kn. E.N.Trubetskoj, condemning tactics of extreme parties, has noticed: " concepts of goods and evil were replaced at us with concepts left and right ". This judgement convicting of the current political life action iezuiticheskoj of morals, ascertains, certainly, the indisputable fact; but, fortunately or unfortunately, motive of such distortion of normal and universal morals simple unruliness, immorality or nothing opravdyvaemyj party egoism, and something much deeper and strong - original morals, the whole specific moral philosophy is not. This philosophy could lift openly a glove, thrown to it kn. Trubetskim. She would tell: " Yes, concepts of goods and evil are identical with concepts left and right. For for us believing and for certain knowing, that all "left" is useful and serves for realization of the highest blessing, and all "right" harmful to it and detains his realization - for us really there are no other criteria of morals, except for assistance to all "left" and destruction of all "right". When the party of the God resists to a party of a satan above their dispute there is no highest authority, and all means in this struggle svjaty and blagi, time they are useful to the God. So Catholicism so - it is open or silent argued - modern Catholics of democratic religion argue also. This reasoning in general can concern with the identical formal right to any maintenance, contact any ideal; for example, for the fanatic "right" the God is directed there where "left" sees a satan, and the satan is that for "left" there is a God; but the reasoning, as such remains in force, and with it and his practical conclusio ns. Against the reasoning it is impossible to object anything; from the point of view of logic it is faultless. It is possible to object only against his basic parcel - against an identification of any huma n ideal, aspiration, with an absolute relic. Only having recognized, that to the person is not given to know wholly and entirely the maximum truth, that in a human life there is no infallible instance which would specify where the God and where a satan, it is possible to deny this distortion of morals. Who has rejected this basic precondition, service to the God always more or less subjectively is clear to that, that, always depends on doubtful human understanding of the God and consequently does not allow the person of the right to ignore the duties in relation to people. These duties put a barrier not only to his personal, egoistical promptings, but also his maximum aspirations to an ideal. The consciousness of infallibility, fairly notices Fule, in practice is identical with egoism: If egoism will be, that the unique real blessing the person counts the personal interest consciousness of infallibility as identifies the absolute blessing with will and desires of the person, proniknutogo belief in the knowledge of this blessing.
Thus, finally the problem of despotism is clean-philosophical or even a religious-philosophical problem. The estimation of despotism depends on understanding of the attitude between the God, i.e. the maximum truth, and a human life, and the decision of a problem of despotism is defined by view on voploshchnie the God. The problem of a human life - to aspire to an embodiment of the Deity, to realization of the maximum and absolute goods. Who thinks, that this truth was already realized, that the God was already embodied - if not in a life and a life in ideas and belief, - who trusts, that someone's idea, belief, the doctrine possess the absolute truth, that will be ispovedyvat morals of despotism. For despotism is only practical conclusion from dogmatism, his moral reflection and display. On the contrary, who thinks, that the embodiment of the Deity, realization of the maximum truth - in idea or human soznanim - is never finished, is always incomplete and is imperfect, that all our judgements about eaaaee, all estimations and moral requirements is only incomplete, odnostoronne and subjectively reflect the absolute truth, that comprehension of the truth is made only as infinite process of cathedral education and education of all humanity, that will overcome despotism and will ratify morals of freedom. For for him the identification of the person or a human affair good luck, as well as his identification with a satan is impossible. Any person it will respect, as the possible instrument of the God, it will admit any idea and any aspiration, as helpers of the truth. " Under the attitude of morals there is only one absolute law is an instruction never to act as if own absolute true ". Fule which has constructed on this law the " morals of doubt ", fairly adds: " If the main sin, symbolically attributed to a satan, is pride which, neglecting borders of knowledge, comes nearer to absolute it is possible to tell, that on the ground all daddies and despots, as though it contradicted their desires, are true olitsetvoreniem a satan ".
It is possible to tell, that despotism so adekvaten to dogmatism, however freedom adekvatna krititsizmu. The unique original support of despotism is the consciousness of infallibility giving the right on violent trusteeship; the unique firm and strong support of freedom is krititsizm, consciousness of a relativity of all human beliefs and the aspirations, imposing a duty to respect all people and their freedom.
VI
The idea of the public morals constructed on a principle krititsizma and opposed despotism which follows from dogmatism, gives as well as to us dumaesja, a unique strong substantiation to an ideal of the democratic device of a society.
The main thing, and, from the known point of view, quite thorough objection against democracy will be, that she gives authority and rukovoditelstvo a society to hands unreasonable, blind and possessed passions of crowd. For this doctrine which proceeds from idea that is kind and it is angry in a public life are already found and established once and for all, and that the problem of authority - strictly to carry out any conventional and indisputable ideal - the resulted objection against democracy is completely incontestable. If to look at a political system as on the organization of trusteeship if the choice of the form of authority means a choice of the best protutor, that, certainly, the decision appears not for the benefit of democracy. All thinkers expressing against democracy, objected from this point of view, since Platon and finishing Renanom. Clearly, that rukovoditelstvo people more likely pertinently to transfer the best and the wisest, than crowd. Imperfection of a human nature, inevitable domination in weight of blind prejudices and predilections, inability of the majority to raise up to understanding of true needs and needs of a society are telling arguments against feedback of authority in hands of all without discrimination.
Against these arguments one reason - but quite sufficient can be exposed only to deprive with their ground. It will be, that outside of people, and their collective self-determination there is no other, maximum or best instance able with infallible reliability to specify those elite which should be given authority above people and rukovoditelstvo them. If the best and the wisest they carried on the chele obvious and for all an indisputable seal izbravshej their maximum force if there was no doubt, that and they one essence carriers of reason and the truth it would be natural and simple to prefer to their unreasonable crowd. But here again finds out the force the basic argument krititsizma: we do not have exact criteria of absolute goods and absolute true. And just because such criteria are not present, our unique outcome is to give a choice to everything, collective idea of people. General submission of a voice - not only in narrow, technical value, and in wide philosophical sense of influence of all opinions for a public life - is unique means to provide a choice of a true way or the best minds for his search. Certainly, the true does not appear in a ready kind as a mechanical product of universal suffrage, but she in fact cannot be extracted and authorized by any mechanical means at all. Behind impossibility to make selection between the best and the worse, reasonable and mad, does not remain anything other how to give influence by all and to give to true to be developed as a result of natural interaction and friction of all views, characters, abilities and spiritual forces. Imperfection of a human nature is argument not against democracy, and in its advantage for it deprives with force all plans of a political system in the form of trusteeship and calls all society for the decision excessive for the separate person of a problem of realization of the public blessing.
This implies, that value of democracy not that she is authority of everything, and that she is freedom of all. Its sense - mainly negative: democracy means clearing of trusteeship, destruction privelegy the few on domination, a cancellation of distinction between "active" and "passive" citizens. True value of democracy will consist not in transfers of authority to hands of all or the majority, and in restriction of each individual will voleju all other members of a society. Therefore, if the democracy based on freedom, is best of possible forms of a political system democracy jakobinskaja or based on despotism should be recognized as his most insolvent form. For the democratic despotism comprises the internal contradiction of two antagonistic ideas - ideas of despotism or trusteeship and idea of self-determination, and this contradiction is historically shown, that despotism of the majority is always only transitive step to despotism of the few or one. Practically the authority always belongs to few heads as it is rather thin Pushkin has noticed. " In the fatal image, at all kinds of board, people submitted to minority or units so a word democracy, in a sense, it is represented to me empty and deprived ground " (Memoirs Smirnovoj). The weight, the majority cannot really dominate or supervise; therefore democratic despotism contains some internal falseness which soo ner or later is found out. Only the democracy which is understood and carried out as self-determination or a self-protection of all from authority of minority is the real and strong fact of huge political and moral value. Democracy cannot be based on belief in infallibility of the majority; for this belief there are no bases, and she is no more convincing, than any other belief. Democracy leans, on the contrary, on denying of any infallibility, whether there will be that infallibility of one, or the few, or the majority; She opposes any infallibility the right of each human person on partnership in the decision of a question on the public blessing.
Thus, transition from a despotism to democracy is not simply external event of political history; strongly and finally such transition can be made only on ground of internal, spiritual evolution, on ground of development moral-philosophical mirosozertsanija and moods. Only the society which does not worship more any idols to which the fanatical belief leading to obozhestvleniju one human has put also of aspirations and to despotic suppression and destruction opposite, is alien - only such society was for ever released from despotism, and only build the lives, based on internal moral respect for all opinions and veram, on the tolerance expiring from independent critical thinking, forms a strong stronghold of the free democratic device.
Simeon Ljudvigovich Frank
" Philosophical preconditions of despotism ", 1907
The public lecture read for the benefit of starving
On February, 14, 1907 in Petersburg
Source: http://www.davar.net/DOWNLOAD.HTM (Russian)
Criticism: The philosophy of despotism, as well as in general legal philosophy or political philosophy, investigating and solving a problem of legitimacy of known public attitudes, has no anything the general with sociology or psychology of the right which studies actual structure and causal conditionality of legal relations. The author has presented attempt of the psychological analysis of the phenomena of authority and domination in clause " the Problem of authority ".
The Law: " The Idea of the state " is quoted at Anri Michel.
Inevitable: However, even in this area of extremely exact and authentic knowledge, the true too is not given to people in the absolute form; fiziokraty did not suspect, that probably and, hence, revolt even against Evklida is lawful. Lobachevsky, having refused to recognize known V-? an axiom, has made this revolt and by that has expanded and has corrected so, on - vidimomomu, infallible geometrical consciousness of people.