The origin of households in the
Wolffian system is the desire for intercourse, together with the
obligation to care for the possible outcome of the intercourse, that is, children. Now, Wolff suggests that household by itself cannot satisfy
all needs of a human being. At most, a life constricted to a
household can satisfy only basic needs, but this would be only animal
and not human life – the households could not provide for the
future nor would they be able to care for higher needs like science
and arts. Wolff even invokes the Hobbesian argument that a life
without a community of men would be a life of fear, because anyone
could be killed by other people.
A community or a state is then created
by households entering into a mutual contract that aims at the
general well-being of all of them – note
that it is the head of the houshold that gets to decide the loalty of
everyone in his family. Wolff obediently notes all the six classical
possibilities with the traditional names derived from Aristotle: the
good constitutions or monarchy, aristocracy and polity and their
corrupted variants or tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Wolff then
does allow the possibility of ”polities” or republics ruled by
majority votes, although he notes that they are often hindered
by party politics. Still, the rest of the book is clearly meant for
absolute or constitutional monarchies, where the king has all or at
least majority of power in his hands. Wolff's task is to enlighten
the German despots and make their minds accessible to reforms their
states required.
Wolffian ideal of society contains some
characteristics that justify calling him an enlightenment
philosopher. For instance, Wolff encourages kings to found schools,
colleges and universities for educating people in sciences and
handicrafts, to build hospitals and apothecaries for serving the
sick and to make the cities beautiful for all senses by filling them
with works of art and by making sure that nothing stinks. Then again,
the main interest of Wolff in politics is the upholding of public
morality, which gives Wolff's suggestions a moralizing tone. Thus,
Wolff suggests that only art that teaches morals is to be accepted
and that a state should be filled with buildings for public moral
preaching. The most extreme suggestion from modern standpoint is that
all punishments should happen in public in order that potential
criminals would think twice of their immoral intentions.
The idea of places for public moral
preaching is interesting as a not so veiled attempt to promote
churches as necessary for the well-being of the state – the attempt
becomes even more apparent, when Wolff notes that belief in God is
almost a prerequisite for a moral society. True, Wolff has admitted
that morality is possible without religion. Wolff even goes so far as
to accept China as an atheist state that has one of the best
constitutions in the world – as we shall see, this admission will
be fatal to Wolff's carrieer. Still, Wolff is convinced that majority
of atheists will be scoundrels incapable of living in community with
other people.
Wolffian politics is then not so much
interested of the welfare of the people, but of their morality –
although bodily and mental welfare is, of course, part of moral
perfection in Wolffian system. Thus, it is just natural that in
Wolff's opinion laws of a state should be based on the law introduced
already in Wolff's moral writings, that is, the natural law. Wolff
does allow some changes to be made to the natural law in case when
following it would be extremely difficult. For instance, natural law
determines that a child should become independent, when she has all
the necessary skills for taking care of herself. Yet, because it is
often hard to determine the exact time when a person has become
mature in his actions, state must make a concession and determine
some fixed age at which everyone is to be considered an adult.
Natural law is for Wolff even a higher
authority than state. Usually one must obey the rulers of one's
state, but if the rulers break the natural law, people are not
committed to obeying them. Thus, if a king tries to murder someone,
the attemped victim has the right to defend herself. Yet, Wolff
advices people to resist the ruler's will only in the cases where
one's own well-being is threatened or where one is commanded to do
immoral things. Hence, if a despot threatens to kill your neighbours,
you have no obligation to help them – unless you happen to be the
soldier who is to pull the trigger.
Wolffian system of politics appears
then to have no true stopgap for tyrants and dictators. True, Wolff
does advise kings to limit their own power and become as symbolic
rulers as king of Sweden or queen of England are nowadays. Wolff even
justifies this adivce through a comparison with the universal monarch
or God, who leaves the actual government of the world to humans. Yet,
there is no guarantee that a tyrant would follow Wolff's advice.
Indeed, Wolff can only hope that religion and the fear of God would
stop kings from tyrannical behaviour – a rather poor hope when
Wolff has just congratulated God of not meddling in human affairs.
The individual states are then related
like individual persons to one another, and just like persons ideally
act like self-enclosed monads, so should states have no concern for
the international community. Positive in this isolationism is that
Wolff thinks all warfare to be evil and justifiable only as a
self-defence – although Wolff does accept also reasonable
suspicision of evil intentions as a reason for self-defence, somewhat
like American head of state before the attack to Iraq. But Wolff
appears to be blind to the invisible economic battle that his
mercantilist tendencies generate – Wolff advices states to horde as
much money as possible, which in effect make economic co-operation
impossible in international level.
So much then for Wolffian politics.
Next time I'll have something to say about the generation of Wolffian
school.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti