Christian August Crusius: Instruction to live reasonably - The law of the land

The purpose of state or republic, according to Crusius, is to guarantee common good of its citizens, and prudence in affairs of state means finding the best means for this common good. Crusius notes that no one constitution is the only possible means for common good - all three simple constitutions (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy) and their various combinations could work. Following tradition beginning from Aristotle, Crusius remarks that all of these constitutions could also be corrupted, if the regents of the state cared only for themselves and their own class (e.g. the three simple constitutions could be corrupted into tyrannies, oligarchies and ochlocracies). This corruption or illness of republic, Crusius clarifies, is not to be confused with mere irregularity of republic, where its constitution does not wholly serve the common good - irregularity does not yet give subjects right to overthrow their regents nor does it give other republics a right to meddle in its affairs.

In practice, Crusius advises that constitution of a republic should somehow restrict the power of regent. At least during the crucial time, when a new regent is required, either citizens should have a say in choosing the new government of the republic or this should be precisely determined by the constitution, so that the common good would not be too dependent on whims of an arbitrary individual. Indeed, the constitution should allow for strengthening and weakening the power of the regent, as the situation demanded.

In monarchy, Crusius specifies, regularity of the state demands that the power of the monarch is restricted by immutable laws, and even better, by an independent council or collegium, because individual rulers can easily become vicious. Still, Crusius adds, these restrictions shouldn’t get in the way of swift decisions, if common good required them. Furthermore, Crusius suggests that monarchies should be hereditary, because this would allow educating future monarchs to their position.

In addition, hereditary monarchies fall more rarely in civil wars, Crusius believes. In fact, he considers civil war so great a danger that he counsels making hereditary lines definite. Crusius advises particularly against monarchies with several monarchs, because at worst this encourages civil wars and at best it still weakens the republic.

Crusius has not as much to say about aristocracies and democracies. He notes that aristocracies should not be hereditary, because that could prevent best people becoming regents. Furthermore, Crusius thinks that rules stating how an aristocratic counsel comes to a decision should be clear, so that there would be no ambiguity about the decision making process. Of democracies Crusius really has nothing to say beyond noting that it requires a completely civilised nation.

In addition to choosing a constitution, Crusius continues, prudence in affairs of state concerns also the day-to-day decisions of a republic. Individual republics have their own particular circumstances requiring particular decisions, but Crusius notes that some general rules can be justified already by the general nature of republics.

Crusius begins by noting that good and prudent government has three goals, none of which should be ignored nor emphasised over others. First goal is to secure the position of regent and apply his powers most efficiently. Crucius remarks that writers like Machiavelli had focused on this goal, forgetting that the good of the regent was intricately connected with the good of the citizens, the second goal of prudent government. This second goal was overemphasised, Crusius says, by republican writers, who had forgotten that a republic still required an efficient regent. Finally, Crucius picks as the third goal the status of republic among other republic. Just like with other goals, he notes that some politicians focused too much on this particular goal, forgetting that external glory of state is based on its internal happiness.

Crusius states that prudence in affairs of state uses the very same capacities as prudence in private affairs, although it applies these capacities in different matters, which it then ought to be informed of. Specifically prudent governor should know the geographical characteristics of the land and the citizens, the political constitution of the whole republic and various communities within it, economic state of the republic, and finally, interests and goals of neighbouring republics.

Crusius emphasises the role of religion as the basis of security of republics. In addition to religion, sciences, arts and freedom of thinking should be protected, because they serve as means for securing all the goals of human life and make republics respected. Despite the lip service to freedom of thinking, Crusius is not willing to tolerate ideas working against the security of state, such as, he insists, atheism.

Crusius advises regents to be careful in choosing their officials and to prefer intelligent and virtuous people over those of high birth. Still, he also suggests that regents should not replace their own intelligence with the intelligence of their officials and that they should closely control the doings of those officials, because they work in the name of the regent. Crusius insists that officials should always follow direct commands of regent, to make the republic secure, while laws, according to Crucius, can be broken, if it is prudent to do so. Indeed, Crusius suggests, good example of regent guides subjects better than any laws.

Crusius speaks for strict regulation of state spendings - republic should always have some reserve finances, in case money is required for emergencies. Money shouldn’t particularly be given freely to subjects, Crusius argues, because they wouldn’t respect what they haven’t worked for, and they particularly shouldn’t have the right to press their own coinage. Instead, subjects should be taxed heavily, Crusius says, since no citizen should have means to live by oneself, but be in various ways dependent on other citizens. Indeed, a person providing sustenance to others should be congratulated, Crusius suggests, because they help to realise one goal of republic. To make taxation fair, Crusius notes, richer individuals should pay the most. Generally, he insists that money should be directed to move from owner to another from time to time, since in this manner it helps the state and the subjects more than if it remained stagnant. Thus, if some goods in land were still ownerless, they could be taken as regent’s property, so that they could be used for everyone’s benefit.

Crusius has not very much to say about legislation, beyond the general fact that laws should be applicable to different subjects. Furthermore, Crusius emphasises that laws should definite, so that there can be no room for misinterpretation, whether it is accidental or purposeful. Against another sort of fraud is directed Crusius’ advise that regents should be careful that religious communities won’t meddle into civil life of their members, since this is often a way to deceive lower classes.

When it comes to foreign relations, Crusius advocates for maintaining the army in good condition, because a strong army has an important role in preventing foreign conquest and in raising the prestige of the republic, which is important for achieving its goals. In commerce, Crusius holds onto essentially mercantilist ideals: foreign imports should be restricted, because losing gold weakens the state, and if something is to be imported, it should be raw materials that are then further developed into manufactures that could be sold to other countries for more money. Crusius still does not believe that republics are only competitors of one another. Indeed, he says that just like humans require friends, countries require alliances for their own security.

Christian August Crusius: Instruction to live reasonably - How to win friends and influence people

After dealing with the general rules of prudence, Crusius turns to its first area of application, that is, private affairs. He begins by noting that large parts of this study can be discarded, because they belong already to other sciences. Firstly, prudential care of one’s body and health belongs to medicine, secondly, prudential care of one’s understanding and intellect is the matter of logic, and finally, prudential care of one’s will and motivations has already been dealt in various parts of ethics and moral philosophy.

What is left for Crusius to consider is the prudential care of relationships with other people - in other words, how to get others to respect, honour and care for us. Unlike in case of proper moral philosophy, this is not so much a question of what one is deep down like and what an ideal, omniscient, God-like observer would say about one’s character, but more about how one appears to other people. Thus, although a person would be far from perfection in some field, she might still be respected, because she was viewed as perfect, at least when compared to other people.

Even so, Crusius is quick to warn his readers to avoid such a mere relative honour, because an honour based on being better than someone else will just create envy in others. In fact, he notes, lasting respect and honour must be based on true perfections. Furthermore, he continues, one should be careful in not bragging about one’s perfections and showing them only with good understanding, if one wants others to respect them.

A further, but related question Crusius considers is how to get people to love oneself. Love, Crusius defines, is awakened by perceiving perfections in someone and makes the lover attempt connecting with the beloved. Most often love is awakened, Crusius says, by perception of a perfection of will, because good will and good behaviour are signs of a person who is easy to connect with. Indeed, Crusius notes, a simple way to find love is to show love. Similarly, one should avoid things like mocking others and being ungrateful, if one does not want to be despised by others.

Crusius defines friendship as a type of love, more particularly, as connection of persons, in which both attempt to promote one another’s private ends. Because friendship is kind of love, Crusius advises, finding friends is a lot like making people love oneself. Indeed, he notes that best means for getting friends is to make oneself indispensable to others.

With this rather Dale Carnegian part of Crusius’ philosophy behind us, we have only one more part of the book to consider - that of prudential affairs of state.

Christian August Crusius: Instruction to live reasonably - Art of fulfilling your goals

Having completed Crusius’ account of natural law - study of what we human beings must strive for - we still have a second part of his moral philosophy to deal with - study of prudence or the best means for achieving our goals. While natural law is meant to affect our use of will by making us choose best goals, study of prudence should affect our understanding.

Crusius notes that many particular arts also tell what are the best means for achieving some particular end, but such arts are not included in the general study of prudence. Furthermore, Crusius also won’t accept in this study means that are clear enough from common experience. The only thing left, then, Crusius says, is to look at means that can be derived from the nature of human soul and the principles of whole moral philosophy.

Crusius notes that the means we are discussing can be means either of private or public matters, which divides the study of prudence into two parts. In addition to these two parts, Crusius remarks, a third part should be added, which would universally look at general means for any goal whatsoever. This general part of the study of prudence is then further divided into two parts. First part would study the best ways how to apply a given means, while the second part would explain how we can find means in general for different goals.

Starting from the first part, Crusius notes that one should at first try to simplify one’s goals. For instance, if we have a complex goal to reach, we should try to analyse this goal into finer components that could be pursued more easily. Furthermore, Crusius lists various general methods for ensuring that a given goal is reached, such as finding many possible means for one goal. Finally, Crusius suggests that we should always consider whether the means we use for achieving one goal could be used at the same time for pursuit of a different goal.

The second part Crucius divides into three sections, first of which deals with ways to find means pertaining to understanding. Crusius explicitly mentions such capacities as a capacity to look at things and perceive conditions affecting the use of those things as means. Furthermore, Crusius mentions the capacity to gather experience and information from different sources.

The second section is then about means concerning will. Crusius lists, among other things, bravery, cheerful mind and good moral taste as those means. All of these had their own reasons why Crusius included them - bravery would let us continue to fulfill our actions, no matter what the circumstances, cheerful mind would let us ignore potential harms and good moral taste would let us pick quickly what is right and what is wrong.

The largest section is the one where Crusius deals with means concerning relations to other persons. Firstly, he notes that no matter how moral and prudent our actions are, they definitely should appear so in the eyes of other people. Thus, he says, our actions should look like we have chosen our goals with reason and not seem purposeless.

In addition to making others think highly of oneself, Crusius also suggests that one should acquire skills to know what others actually think. Partially, he notes that there are certain general rules to follow here, such as that people often believe only what they can perceive and that they believe things that accord with their own desires.

Beyond such general rules, Crusius thinks that we can learn to interpret an individual person’s mind. In case of ourselves, these readings might be certain, while with other people, Crusius admits, we can often know their mind only with probability. Still, he says, we can use introspection to learn the nature of the capacities of mind, and then draw analogies to other people’s minds.

Crusius draws very stringent limits to in what measure we can hope to know other people. Just like many other philosophers before him, Crusius notes that while physiognomy or study of human mind from mien and other bodily features is in principle a possible science, it is definitely a quite uncertain science - person’s taste can tell us more than his facial expression, Crusius suggests. Furthermore, unlike some Wolffians, Crusius thinks that what person says or does in a state of intoxication - or other similar abnormal state - does not tell what they think in ordinary life.

Finally, Crusius warns against trying to predict person’s future actions, even if we know what they have in their mind. He does not completely discard the possibility, but suggests that this is possible only in cases, where a person is wont to follow their inclinations and external impulses. Because of a possibility of a freely chosen action, Crusius notes, such deductions of future actions are always unreliable - a human being could always choose to act otherwise.