Whatever his reason be for acting, the crime is treason. - Spinoza
I had to read over this particular atomic argument again. He makes the case that a man commits treason when he tries to usurp sovereignty after he has already forfeited his rights to another, namely the state. More concretely, a man who has entered into a covenant and become part of society no longer has the right to make the decisions (unless he were the sovereign, of course). This is all very Hobbesian, and Spinoza actually seems to have very similar political views (except he is not nearly so pessimistic on human nature). A man who thus is a citizen of a state is treasonous if he tries to take that state's power for himself.
A few seconds' contemplation will confirm the usual definition of treason. A soldier who gives up his army's position or intentions is clearly trying to usurp the power of making strategic and diplomatic decisions. He is rightfully called a traitor (I wonder if that word comes from the same root as treason...). However, Spinoza then goes out to argue that even the positive act can be a treasonous. A vigilante soldier who defies his commander and advances alone to kill the enemy is also a traitor - he too wants to usurp power from his generals and government officials.
I suppose here the ambiguity of language certainly plays a part. I see where Spinoza is going with his argument. The well-intentioned misbehavior is just as detrimental to order as the badly-intentioned misbehavior - perhaps even moreso. As a military officer, I truly agree that both types of insubordination have negative consequences. However I'm not sure you would call the well-meaning man treasonous. Treason has a certain definition, and it doesn't necessarily just mean insubordinate. I associate nuance with the word. Miriam-Webster defines treason as 1. betrayal of trust, but 2. the overt act of trying to overthrow a government. I would argue that most (English-speaking) people associate treason with negative betrayal.
But I suppose this is a semantic argument at beast. The treatise wasn't written in English, and ideas do get muddled in translation.
And after some research - yes, traitor and treason share a root in the Latin 'traditor'.
I had to read over this particular atomic argument again. He makes the case that a man commits treason when he tries to usurp sovereignty after he has already forfeited his rights to another, namely the state. More concretely, a man who has entered into a covenant and become part of society no longer has the right to make the decisions (unless he were the sovereign, of course). This is all very Hobbesian, and Spinoza actually seems to have very similar political views (except he is not nearly so pessimistic on human nature). A man who thus is a citizen of a state is treasonous if he tries to take that state's power for himself.
A few seconds' contemplation will confirm the usual definition of treason. A soldier who gives up his army's position or intentions is clearly trying to usurp the power of making strategic and diplomatic decisions. He is rightfully called a traitor (I wonder if that word comes from the same root as treason...). However, Spinoza then goes out to argue that even the positive act can be a treasonous. A vigilante soldier who defies his commander and advances alone to kill the enemy is also a traitor - he too wants to usurp power from his generals and government officials.
I suppose here the ambiguity of language certainly plays a part. I see where Spinoza is going with his argument. The well-intentioned misbehavior is just as detrimental to order as the badly-intentioned misbehavior - perhaps even moreso. As a military officer, I truly agree that both types of insubordination have negative consequences. However I'm not sure you would call the well-meaning man treasonous. Treason has a certain definition, and it doesn't necessarily just mean insubordinate. I associate nuance with the word. Miriam-Webster defines treason as 1. betrayal of trust, but 2. the overt act of trying to overthrow a government. I would argue that most (English-speaking) people associate treason with negative betrayal.
But I suppose this is a semantic argument at beast. The treatise wasn't written in English, and ideas do get muddled in translation.
And after some research - yes, traitor and treason share a root in the Latin 'traditor'.
No comments:
Post a Comment