第二章 论原初社会

君主专制在18世纪的欧洲普遍存在，其理论基础是“君权神授”，以英国人费尔默的《父权制》为代表，认为政治权力的由来应追溯到父亲对儿女的权威，在《创世纪》中神将王权受给了亚当，并由亚当下传给他的历代继承人，最后到了近世各君主手中。这将君主专制、父权权威鼓吹至极致。卢梭通过描述原始社会的家庭状态，来批驳父权制是专制社会和政治权威来源的观点。在《论人类不平等的起源》中卢梭写道：“很多学者认为专制政治和整个社会都是从父权中延伸出来的，但其实世界上没有比父权的温和与专制政治的残暴差别更大的了。依照自然法，父亲只有在子女还需要他的扶助的时候，他才是子女的主人。一旦子女能够独立生活，他们的地位就平等了，此时子女对父亲就只有尊敬的义务而没有服从的义务。因此，我们不能说文明社会是从父权派生出来的，相反地，却应该说父权是从文明社会汲取了它的主要力量。”

卢梭还批驳了关于政治社会合法性建立在奴役、天然优势、个人优秀品质等基础上的观点。格劳秀斯在其《战争与和平法》中提出，有些权力本身就是为了有利于统治者而设立的，如奴隶主对奴隶的权力。卢梭认为其这种以事实来确定权力的推理方法证明力不足。亚里士多德认为人不是天然平等的，有些人生来就是做奴隶的，而另一些人生来就是统治的。卢梭对此一针见血地指出，这是把因果关系颠倒了，是强力造出了最初的奴隶，而他们的懦弱使他们永远当奴隶。对此，卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源》第二部分有非常精彩的评析，“自由也和天真、美德一样，人们只有在切身享受到它的时候才会感觉到它的价值，一旦失去了，便也丧失了对它们的兴趣。我们不应当根据被奴役人民的堕落状态，而应当根据一切自由民族为反抗压迫而作出的惊人事迹，来判断人的天性到底是甘受奴役还是向往自由”。

2. THE FIRST SOCIETIES

THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.

This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.

The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the peoples under him.

Grotius denies that all human power is established in favour of the governed, and quotes slavery as an example. His usual method of reasoning is constantly to establish right by fact. It would be possible to employ a more logical method, but none could be more favourable to tyrants.

It is then, according to Grotius, doubtful whether the human race belongs to a hundred men, or that hundred men to the human race: and, throughout his book, he seems to incline to the former alternative, which is also the view of Hobbes. On this showing, the human species is divided into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps guard over them for the purpose of devouring them.

As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, the shepherds of men, i.e., their rulers, are of a nature superior to that of the peoples under them. Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor Caligula reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods, or that men were beasts.

The reasoning of Caligula agrees with that of Hobbes and Grotius. Aristotle, before any of them, had said that men are by no means equal naturally, but that some are born for slavery, and others for dominion.

Aristotle was right; but he took the effect for the cause. Nothing can be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude, as the comrades of Ulysses loved their brutish condition. If then there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition.

原始社会：卢梭笔下的自然状态自由、平等、美好，他认为人在无法抗拒地进入社会状态后，必然会失去天然自由和平等。

I have said nothing of King Adam, or Emperor Noah, father of the three great monarchs who shared out the universe, like the children of Saturn, whom some scholars have recognised in them. I trust to getting due thanks for my moderation; for, being a direct descendant of one of these princes, perhaps of the eldest branch, how do I know that a verification of titles might not leave me the legitimate king of the human race? In any case, there can be no doubt that Adam was sovereign of the world, as Robinson Crusoe was of his island, as long as he was its only inhabitant; and this empire had the advantage that the monarch, safe on his throne, had no rebellions, wars, or conspirators to fear.