About resisting evil by force. Moral justification of violence in I.A.

Martynenko Ksenia Borisovna

chief specialist of financial and legal support of the financial market department and securities administration municipality Krasnodar city

(tel.: 89882465290)_________________________________________________________________

I.A. Ilyin about resisting evil by force

Annotation:

The article analyzes the work of I. A. Ilyin “On resistance to evil by force,” where he outlined his point of view on violence. The author takes an unconventional approach to the consideration of the material and conclusions.

The article analyzes the work of IA Ilyina “On resisting evil by force”, where he outlined his views on violence. From innovative approaches to review the material and conclusions.

Key words: state; continuity; right; a crisis; violence; good; evil; force; resistance.

Keywords: State; continuity; law; crisis, violence, good, evil, power, resistance.

I. A. Ilyin’s book “On (resisting evil by force,” where he outlined his point of view on violence, caused heated controversy among Russian emigrants. N. A. Berdyaev described Ilyin’s book as “a nightmare of evil good,” and a certain Tserkovnik “baptized "I. A. Ilyin as a “chekist in the name of God.” Yu. Aikhenvald spoke of Ilyin’s ideas as “evil good,” but these assessments are extremely unfair. Ilyin’s book is very relevant today, and many of the Russian thinker’s ideas about violence must be recognized still true.

Ilyin himself, in a letter to P. B. Struve, defines the structure of the work as follows, distinguishing four parts:

“1) chapters 1-8: clearing the road of debris, clarifying, clarifying, removing chaff from thoughts, feelings and will; formulation of the problem;

chapters 9-12: burial of embalmed Tolstoy;

Chapters 13-18: Resolving the Problem - The Beginning: Strike, But When? But

how long? but when? but who? but why? but why?;

chapters 19-22: problem resolution - end: cleanse yourself of what?

Why? For what?" .

There is an opinion expressed back in his

time I. A. Ilyin that the word “violence” itself has a negative value aspect. “The mere use of this value-laden and affectively colored term causes negative tension in the soul and predetermines the question under study in a negative sense.” I. A. Ilyin, in his work “On Resistance to Evil by Force,” therefore, instead of the term “violence,” began to use the terms “coercion” and “coercion.” However, here, I think, this is precisely the case when the essence of the phenomenon does not change due to renaming. In ethics, the term “violence” remains to denote the use of force - physical, spiritual - to someone, to denote coercive influence on someone.

The word “violence”, indeed, at the level of ordinary consciousness evokes a negative attitude towards itself. But violence comes in many forms. In addition, we note that assessing violence always requires a specific situational analysis.

It is quite obvious that it is necessary to distinguish the objective action assessed as violence from its assessment. Such an action may be associated with the values of good and evil. For example, violence against terrorists holding hostages would be violence against the terrorists while freeing the hostages. And if there is violence used here

SOCIETY AND LAW 2009 No. 3(25)

to terrorists can still be assessed as evil, then the release of hostages is an undoubted good.

Ilyin does not accept Tolstoy’s understanding of law and the state as the main sources of violence in society: “a sentimental moralist does not see and does not understand that law is a necessary and sacred attribute of the human spirit; that every spiritual state of a person is a modification of right and righteousness, and that it is impossible to protect the spiritual flourishing of humanity on earth without a compulsory social organization, outside the law, court and sword.”

However, Ilyin well understood that the negative attitude towards law was provoked by the legal positivism that dominated in the 19th century, the dictates of the letter of the law, the class-based nature of domestic law, and the powerless position of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry. However, Ilyin believes that a complete denial of positive law is unacceptable. In his opinion, it would be correct to pose the question of the relationship between positive law and natural law. He does not believe that the dynamism of positive law contradicts the static nature of natural law norms and principles: “for a superficial glance, an “inevitable” dualism of “positive” and “natural” law is revealed here, so that a conscientious, but not thoughtful person can see here hopelessness for legal consciousness,” but this dualism is easily eliminated, because “natural law lies in an intimate way, at the basis of the positive, being present in it, firstly, as a known “minimum of rightness,” secondly, in the person of its main categories and, thirdly, in the form of an immanent but unresolved task. The unity of positive and natural law has already been given, at least in embryo, and is still given, in its integral and realized form.”

Ilyin considers it possible to “resist evil by force.” The basis of his concept is the conviction that evil is rooted in the world: “evil is, first of all, a spiritual inclination of a person, inherent in each of us, as if some passionate attraction to unbridled grip living in us.” From here Ilyin concludes that the fight against evil can occur primarily in the soul of the person himself. But the materialization of evil limits the possibility of a spiritual way to combat it. Therefore, even in the fight against evil in his soul, a person is forced to use mental and physical methods.

coercion. And people, being in a spiritual connection with each other, must help each other in this struggle, including using methods of mental and physical coercion of others. The problem of using physical coercion in the fight against evil is one of the most important in Ilyin’s work. He believes that if a person is “possessed by evil,” then physical influence on him is the only way to limit his evil will. But the influence does not lead directly to good, but only isolates the bearer of evil, locks him in on himself and helps him awaken spirituality and begin the fight against evil in his soul.

Any specific objects or subjects appear as carriers of values of both good and evil. In another system, a specific phenomenon may appear in other moral qualities. Thus, for example, suffering, which is sometimes mistakenly identified with evil, and which is actually associated with certain types of “psychic” and moral evil, can also be involved in good. In other words, it is necessary to distinguish between what is meant by good and evil as natural, social, human phenomena, and what is meant by good and evil as moral values. Not everything perceived as good or evil is good or evil as a moral value. “Good and evil, the personification of which alone could become the moral sanction of violence, are in fact represented in every subject, and in such an interweaving that one does not exist without the other. This excludes the possibility of morally justified and reasonably reasoned violence, but it opens up the widest scope for its moralizing cover.”

Good and evil are intertwined in every subject and object, but this does not make theoretical and practical work meaningless, both on the study of good and evil, and on limiting and eradicating evil, on improving good in the world or improving the world in good.

We believe that the choice of violence, adjusted in a certain way, is determined not so much by its qualities as an “internal” educational means, but rather by its qualities as an “external” means of suppressing evil. In addition, the legitimacy of using certain violence, which must always be accompanied by a situational analysis, follows from the essence of good and evil itself, their relationship.

When assessing violence as a specific practical action, it is necessary to evaluate its various aspects. It is very important to take into account

different kinds good and evil and their hierarchy. And here the concept of “sin” can play a significant role.

The relationship between evil and sin is historical character. The measure of sin is determined by the level of moral state of society and a person, the degree of freedom of choice, and the value rank of the acts committed. No person can avoid evil, but a person can and should avoid sin - hence the special responsibility of a person for the sin committed.

If we now turn to violence, we must admit that all violence as a value is evil, but not all violence is sinful evil. A person bears moral guilt for all violence and special, and in appropriate cases, legal responsibility for sinful violence. A person should not commit sinful violence, for there is no moral justification for it, but a person can, and sometimes should, commit violence that is not sinful. And in this case, a person makes a certain compromise, which cannot be avoided in a world infected with evil.

While recognizing the moral permissibility of non-sinful violence, it should be recognized that all moral responsibility for the violence committed cannot be removed. Violence, in fact, can be justified, in the sense that it is not recognized as a sin when it is directed against the absolutization of freedom, either by an individual or a social

group or even people. The incorrect opposition of freedom, as supposedly the highest value, to the values of peace, community, honor, love, i.e. values that are equal in rank to the value of freedom or superior to it, is the source of sin, and the restriction of such freedom in the form of violence against it does not appear to be a sinful evil .

Literature:

1. See: Ilyin I.A. //Collected works: In 10 volumes. M., 1995. T. 5.

2. Ilyin I.A. Letter to P.B. Struve from 19

June 1925 // In the book. Poltoratsky N.P. Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin: Life, works,

worldview. USA, Hermitage, 1989.

3. Ilyin I.A. On resistance to evil by force // Collection. cit.: In 10 volumes. M., 1995. T. 5.

4. See: Kapustin B.G. Violence/non-violence as a key problem of political morality // Violence and non-violence: philosophy, politics, ethics: Materials of the international. Internet conferences. M., 2003.

5. Ilyin I.A. About resisting evil by force. Berlin, 1925. P. 55.

6. See: Ilyin I.A. About the entity

legal consciousness//Collected. Op. T. 4. M., 1994.

7. Violence and non-violence: philosophy, politics, ethics: Materials of the international. Internet conferences. M., 2003.

8. See: Matveev P.E. Ethics. Fundamentals of business ethics. Vladimir. 2003.

SOCIETY AND LAW 2009 No. 3(25)

The XIV International Muslim Film Festival ended in the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan, which this year broke previous records for the number of applications: selectors looked at 967 films from 56 countries. The Grand Prix was won by the film “The Affectionate Indifference of the World” by director from Kazakhstan Adilkhan Erzhanov. This year she competed at Cannes for the Un Certain Regard award.

For the first time in its history, the jury of the Kazan Film Forum was headed by a woman, actress Maya-Gozel Aimedova, and this gave rise to a joke among the festival audience that the emancipation of Muslim women had reached its peak here. But other, if not so tangible, new turns are also obvious.

“In previous years, the theme of migrants dominated the program of our festival,” Sergei Lavrentyev, program director of the film forum, shared with Izvestia. - Perhaps fatigue has set in, but there are no such films this year. Not because we rejected them, they simply were not entered in the main competition, where Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey and other eastern countries participated. And the focus naturally changed: the view of the Muslim world is not from the outside, as before, but from the inside.

However, the heroes of the winning film can also be called migrants, albeit internal ones. From their native village they find themselves in a hostile city, where they are faced with the injustice of the world. A guy and a girl from a distant village in the film “The Affectionate Indifference of the World” captivate with their pristine, “alien,” almost childlike nature and resist, as best they can, cruelty and cynicism.

Director Shamira Naotunna from Sri Lanka portrays similar characters in his film “Moped” (a prize from the Guild of Film Critics of Russia). The film clearly echoes the neorealistic “Bicycle Thieves” by Vittorio de Sica, where the ill health of society is revealed through the fate of a little man.

Most of the festival films emphasized the lyrical story. The heroes could be children, as in the poignant short drama “Tree” (Khava Mukhieva’s film won in the “Young Russia” section). Or older people, as in the Egyptian film “Photocopy” (the prize for best acting was won by Mahmoud Hamida) and in the short film “Father’s House” by Nasur Yurushbaev and Amir Galiaskarov. Regardless of whether films have a happy or tragic ending, it is in preserving love that directors see a powerful alternative to evil.

From the outside it may seem that the Muslim film festival is thematically limited by the framework of the confession, but this is not at all the case. Yes, among the documentaries there is, say, Amir Gataullin’s short film “The Koran: from the Revelation to the Kazan Edition,” and among the feature films there is the drama “Mulla” by Ramil Fazliev and Amir Galiaskarov. But even paintings with a bright national color were universal in meaning, universal to humanity. And the viewer, who once sympathized with the main character of the film “Pop” by Vladimir Khotinenko, would here sympathize with the mullah from the drama of the same name, who also carries out his ascetic service in the wilderness.

If we switch from plot parallels to the aesthetic features of films, then their narrative nature is obvious - in contrast to auteur cinema in the European version, which often avoids it, striving for “pure cinema” with a dominant visuality. But the narrative presented at this festival grows from the primordial epic features of oriental art and fairy tale traditions. And ultimately reflects the national identity of thinking. And preserving one’s identity and staying true to one’s roots make national art interesting to the whole world.

As we all know in Lineage 2 there is a continent called Gracia. First of all, this location is for high-level players and rare things are obtained here.
The article is dedicated to the quest "Resistance to Evil", with which you can get recipes and parts for the Ikarus weapon (s80), books for lvl 81 skills and second-level Dynasty Essences. You must be lvl 75 and complete the quest

Resistance to Evil
1. We fly to the mainland of Gracia. On Kucerus Alliance Base are looking for General Dilios. We take the quest from him.

2. Dilios will ask you to find Smuggler Cochrane(central square of the Alliance Base)

3. The further goal is to kill monsters in Seeds of Destruction and Immortality.

We gather the party and go into battle. I want to say that items are given to each character in the party.

In the Seed of Immortality - kill any monsters, collect Corrupt Soul Core And Soul Edge
In the Seed of Destruction - kill any monsters, collect Dragon Totem And Breath of Tiada

Exchange quest items with Smuggler Cochran at the Keucereus Alliance Base and purchase goods.

That's all. You will have to kill a lot of mobs, so if you are going for grace, be sure to take this quest.

new! A hunting zone has been added to Lineage 2 Freya. Here, collect elemental energy (see Collecting star stones and elemental crystals), and receive additional Concentrated Life Energy. At Cochran we change to:

Concentrated Life Energy = 600 adena
Soul Stone Shard Powder - 5 pcs. = Soul Stone Fragment - 1 pc.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

TYUMEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Philosophy

Test

“The moral justification of violence in I.A. Ilyina"

Completed by: students 924 b gr.

Lyzhin S.A.

Turov A.N.

Checked:

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy

Muravyov I.B.

Tyumen 2014

Introduction

evil violence Ilyin moral

The question of resistance to evil by force is undoubtedly one of the most difficult questions of Christian culture and one of the tragic questions of religious consciousness. It contains not only a cardinal problem of ethics, philosophy of law and philosophy of religion, but also one of the most important antinomies of Orthodox theology. According to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), “in the New Testament there is no permission to use force in the fight against evil,” although “there is no direct prohibition.” Moreover, “not a single church definition, not a single prayer of the Church gives an affirmative answer to the question: “Can a Christian, while remaining a Christian, allow violence in achieving good goals?” The sharpened form of this question should be recognized as the global problem of the attitude of Christianity to war and the state It is no coincidence that Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky asserted in his time: “The question of war, of the attitude of the ministers of the Church towards it, is one of the most difficult and controversial issues of our theology.”

A complete and final resolution of the problem of “Christianity and war,” precisely because of its antinomy, is unlikely to ever become possible. One can agree without hesitation that Christianity categorically condemns aggressive, unjust wars, but can it be said that Christianity also condemns defensive (or liberation), just war? It is true that every war, even the most just one, is murder, blood, and cruelty. We cannot close our eyes to the existence of this tragic reality in our world, but we can approach it in different ways to comprehend and overcome it.

Synopsis of the book "On Resistance to Evil by Force"

Introduction

Humanity grows wiser through suffering. Lack of vision leads him to trials and torment, in torment the soul is cleansed and begins to see clearly, and the clear gaze is given a source of wisdom - evidence.

But the first condition for wisdom is honesty with oneself and with the subject in the face of God.

Can a person striving for moral perfection resist evil with force and sword? Can a person who believes in God, accepts His universe and his place in the world, not resist evil with sword and force? This is a twofold question that now requires a new formulation and a new solution. Now especially, for the first time, like never before, because it is groundless and fruitless to solve the question of evil without having the experience of true evil, and our generation has been given the experience of evil with special force for the first time, like never before. As a result of a long-gestating process, evil has now managed to free itself from all internal divisions and external obstacles, open its face, spread its wings, articulate its goals, gather its strength, realize its ways and means; Moreover, it openly legitimized itself, formulated its dogmas and canons, praised its no longer hidden nature and revealed its spiritual nature to the world. Human history has never seen anything equivalent and equal to this, or, in any case, does not remember. For the first time such genuine evil was given to the human spirit with such frankness.

This question must be posed and resolved philosophically, as a question that requires mature spiritual experience, thoughtful formulation and an impartial decision. To do this, it is necessary, first of all, to abandon premature and hasty conclusions in relation to one’s personality, to its past actions and future paths.

The whole question is deep, subtle and complex, any simplification here is harmful and fraught with false conclusions and theories, any ambiguity is dangerous both theoretically and practically, any cowardice distorts the formula of the question, any bias distorts the formula of the answer.

But this is precisely why it is necessary once and for all to abandon the formulation of the question, which was pushed and gradually pushed into philosophically inexperienced souls by Count L.N. Tolstoy, his associates and students with such blind persistence. ... this group of moralizing publicists incorrectly posed the question and incorrectly resolved it and then, with passion, often reaching the point of bitterness, defended their incorrect resolution of the incorrect question as divinely revealed truth.

And it is natural that a teaching that legitimizes weakness, exalts egocentrism, indulges lack of will, removes social and civic responsibilities from the soul and, what is much more, tragic burden of the universe, must was to have success among people, especially those who were stupid, weak-willed, poorly educated and prone to a simplifying, naively idyllic worldview. It so happened that the teachings of Count L.N. Tolstoy and his followers attracted weak and simple-minded people and, giving themselves a false appearance of agreement with the spirit of Christ’s teaching, poisoned Russian religious and political culture.

Russian philosophy must uncover all this nest of experimental and ideological errors that has imperceptibly penetrated into souls and try once and for all to remove from here all ambiguities and naivety, all cowardice and partiality. This is her religious, scientific and patriotic calling: to help the weak see and become stronger, and the strong to gain confidence and gain wisdom.

About self-devotion to evil

At the very threshold of the problem, it is necessary to establish clearly that non-resistance to evil in the literal sense of the word, none of the honest people even thinks that one inclination to such non-resistance transforms a person from a moral doctor and spiritual subject - into a moral patient and into an object of spiritual education. And this means that he will not discuss the problem of non-resistance, but about him there will be a debate about what exactly to do with it and how exactly it should be resisted to him or something that is in him.

Indeed, what would “non-resistance” mean in the sense of the absence of any resistance? This would mean acceptance evil: allowing it into oneself and giving it freedom, scope and power. If, under such conditions, the uprising of evil occurred and non-resistance continued, then this would mean submission to it, self-surrender to it, participation in it and, finally, turning oneself into its instrument, into its organ, into its breeding ground - enjoying it and being absorbed by it.

This is the spiritual law: not resisting evil absorbed that's what it becomes obsessed. For “evil” is not an empty word, not an abstract concept, not a logical possibility and not “the result of a subjective assessment.” Evil is first and foremost mental inclination human, inherent in each of us, as if something living in us passionate attraction to the unbridling of the beast, a gravitation that always strives to expand its power and to complete its capture.

It is clear that the more spineless and unprincipled a person is, ... the more natural it is for him not to resist evil at all.

Possessed by an evil passion, the non-resisting one rages because he himself has rejected everything that restrains, guides and shapes: all the resisting force has become the power of the storm-bearing evil itself, and the breath of death is fed by the bitterness of the perishing one. That is why the end of his fury is the end of his mental-physical existence: madness or death.

A person who has been spiritually defective since childhood can even develop in himself a special mental structure, which upon superficial observation can be mistaken for “character,” and special views that are mistakenly taken for “beliefs.” In fact, he, unprincipled and characterless, always remains a slave to his bad passions, a captive of his developed spiritual mechanisms, possessive and omnipotent in his life, devoid of spiritual dimension and forming the curve of his disgusting behavior. He doesn't resist him, but cunningly enjoys their game, forcing naive people to accept him evil obsession for "will", him instinctive cunning for the “mind”, the impulses of his evil passions for the “feelings”.

Naturally, spiritually healthy people only cause irritation and anger in such a person and kindle in him a sick lust for power, in the manifestations of which outbreaks of megalomania inevitably alternate with outbreaks of persecution mania.

After the spiritual troubles that broke out over the world in the first quarter of the twentieth century, it is not difficult to imagine what a cadre of such people, possessed by malice and aggressively savage, could create.

In contrast, every mature religion not only reveals the nature of “good”, but also teaches the struggle against evil.

The spiritual experience of mankind testifies that he who does not resist evil does not resist it precisely insofar as he himself is already evil, since he internally accepted it and became one.

There is no doubt that Count L.N. Tolstoy and the moralists associated with him do not at all call for such complete non-resistance, which would be tantamount to voluntary moral self-corruption.

On the contrary, their idea is precisely that the fight against evil is necessary, but that it should be entirely transferred to the inner world of a person, and, moreover, precisely that person who is waging this struggle within himself; such a fighter against evil can even find in their writings a whole series useful tips.

They accept the goal: overcoming evil, but make a unique choice of ways and means. Their skill is a teaching not so much about evil, but about how exactly one should not overcome it.

About good and evil

So, first of all, “evil”, the resistance to which we are talking about here, is not external evil, but internal.

True, natural disasters can unleash evil in human souls, for weak people can hardly bear the danger of death, quickly become demoralized and indulge in the most shameful desires; however, people who are strong in spirit respond to external adversity reverse process- spiritual cleansing and strengthening in goodness, which is sufficiently evidenced by at least the historical descriptions of the great European plague that have reached us. It is clear that the external material process, awakening divine powers in some souls and unleashing the devil in others, is not on my own neither good nor evil.

Evil begins where it begins Human, and, moreover, it is not the human body in all its states and manifestations as such, and human mental and spiritual world - it is the true seat of good and evil.

In human life there is and cannot be either “good” or “evil” that would have a purely physical nature.

But if the real location of good and evil is precisely in the inner, mental-spiritual world of a person, then this means that the fight against evil and overcoming evil can and should be achieved precisely in internal efforts and transformation will be an internal achievement.

Whoever wants to truly resist evil and overcome it must not only suppress its external manifestations and not only stop its internal pressure; he must achieve that the evil passion of his own soul from its own depths, turning, sees; when she saw it, she caught fire; having caught fire, she became purified; having purified herself, she was reborn; having been reborn, she ceased to be in her evil guise.

Good and evil in their essential content are determined through the presence or absence of precisely these two combined features: love And spiritualization.

Human spiritual then and insofar as he voluntarily and independently turns to objective perfection...

Human loving then and insofar as it is addressed to the life content by the power of accepting unity, the power that establishes living identity between the accepting and the acceptable, increasing to infinity the volume and depth of the first and imparting to the second feelings of forgiveness, reconciliation, dignity, strength and freedom.

According to this, there is good spiritualized(or, otherwise, religiously-objectified, from the word “object”) Love, evil - anti-spiritual enmity.

The real overcoming of evil is accomplished through the profound transformation of spiritual blindness into spiritual sight, and of withdrawn, denying enmity into the grace of accepting love. It is necessary for spiritual insight not only to enmity, but also to love. It is necessary that not only spiritual blindness, but also spiritual sight should be kindled with love.

And so when Count L.N. Tolstoy and his like-minded people call for the internal overcoming of evil, for self-improvement, for love, when they insist on the need for strict judgment of oneself, on the need to distinguish between “man” and “the evil in him”, on the incorrectness of information the entire struggle against evil to one external compulsion, on the spiritual and moral advantage of conviction - then they follow in this the sacred tradition of Christianity; and they are right. The mysterious process of the flowering of good and the transformation of evil is carried out, of course, by love, and not by coercion, and evil should be resisted from love, from love and through love.

About coercion and persecution

This should be called coercion the imposition of will on the internal or external composition of a person, which does not address the spiritual vision and loving acceptance of the forced soul directly, but tries to force it or suppress its activity.

...the coercive imposition of will on human life can be carried out within the closed confines of an individual being: a person can force himself; but it can also occur in communication between two or many people: people can force each other. Any compulsion is or self-forcing, or forcing others.

...should be distinguished mental coercion and physical coercion; Moreover, both self-forcing and forcing others can be both mental and physical in nature.

...the state of mental self-force can be designated by the term self-compulsion.

A person can actually not only force himself mentally, but also coerce yourself to the bodily accomplishment and non-completion of certain actions. This state can be designated by the term self-coercion.

It is also possible to force others mentally and physically.

The essence of this [mental] compulsion consists in mental pressure on a person’s will, and this pressure should induce his own will to a certain decision and, perhaps, self-force; strictly speaking, this pressure can only complicate or modify the motivational process in the soul of the forced person, imparting to him new motives that he has not yet accepted in the order of conviction and devotion, or strengthening and weakening existing ones.

This influence encourages compels a person, approaching him “from the outside,” but turning to his soul and spirit; so we can agree to call it mental compulsion.

Finally an opportunity physical influence on others for the sake of forcing them - apparently there is no doubt.

Man is not given coerce others to genuine deeds, that is, to spiritually and mentally integral actions...

A person physically forced by another always has two outcomes that relieve him of this external pressure: hypocrisy And death…

It is clear, finally, that physical coercion can be aimed at someone else's doing and on someone else's idleness. Hence the possibility, along with physical coercion also physical suppression.

It would be a deep spiritual mistake to equate everything coercion - violence and to give central meaning to this latter term. The very word “violence” already conceals a negative assessment: “violence” is an arbitrary, unjustified, outrageous act; A “rapist” is a person who transgresses the boundaries of what is permitted, an attacker, an oppressor - an oppressor and a villain.

To prove the “admissibility” or “legitimacy” of violence means to prove the “admissibility of the unacceptable” or the “legitimacy of the unlawful.”

L.N. Tolstoy and his school are completely unaware of the complexity of this whole phenomenon. They know only one term, and moreover, precisely the one that predetermines the whole question with its affective coloring. They speak and write only about violence and, by choosing this unfortunate, disgusting term, they ensure themselves a biased and blinded attitude towards the whole problem as a whole.

Thus, from the entire sphere of volitional coercion, L. N. Tolstoy and his like-minded people see only self-coercion(“violence against one’s body”) and physical violence against others; They approve of the first, and they absolutely reject the second.

About mental compulsion

Despite all this, it is necessary to establish that the “forcer” does not thereby do an evil deed, and not only when he forces himself, but also when he forces others.

It is clear that you can force and coerce yourself not only for good, but also for evil. Thus, mentally forcing oneself to forgive an offense or to pray will not be an evil deed, but forcing oneself to bear a grudge, to deceive, or to prove a deliberately false and spiritually poisonous theory, or to compose a flattering ode - will be mentally forcing oneself to evil, self-violence.

And in this regard, the task of every person who spiritually educates himself is to correctly find the line between self-force and self-coercion, on the one hand, and self-violence, on the other hand, strengthening himself in the first and never turning to the second: for self-violence will always be equally dangerous and tantamount to spiritual self-betrayal.

...for a person incapable of good self-motivation, the only path leading him to this art is the test of external pressure coming from others.

All people continuously educate each other - whether they want it or not, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they know how or not, whether they care or are careless. They educate each other with every manifestation of theirs: response and intonation, smile and its absence, coming and going, exclamation and silence, request and demand, appeal and boycott.

Slavery corrupts not only the slave, but also the slave owner; an unbridled person is unbridled not only by himself, but also by the social environment, which allowed him to unbridle himself; a despot is impossible if there are no reptiles; “everything is allowed” only where people allow each other everything.

It is designed by God and by nature in such a way that people “influence” each other not only intentionally, but also unintentionally; and this cannot be avoided.

The consciousness or even the vague feeling that the “other” person wants me to want this has always been and always will be one of the most powerful means of human education; and this means acts the more powerfully, the more authoritative this other is, the more definite and unyielding his will, the more faithful it is in the face of God, the more impressive it is expressed, the more responsible the decision must be and the weaker the will of the person being educated.

But what if all this mental coercion turns out to be insufficient and the coerced one still prefers not to “see” and not subject himself to the necessary self-coercion? Then there are two options left: either to grant him freedom of arbitrariness and crime, to admit that the order and prohibition are not supported by anything other than censure and boycott, and thereby bring forward the tempting idea of external unhinderedness to the vicious and evil will, or to turn to physical influence... .

On physical coercion and suppression

It is in this connection and only in this connection that it is correct to approach the problem of physically forcing other people. Because this type of coercion is, first of all, not self-sufficient and not detached from other types, but is their support and consolidation. Physical influence on other people forms the last and extreme stage coercive compulsion; it appears when self-compulsion does not work, and external mental compulsion turns out to be insufficient or untenable.

…physical coercion of a person by a person is not evil and, further, that evil is by no means reducible either to causing physical suffering to one’s neighbor, or to influencing a person’s spirit through the medium of his body.

External physical influence as such is not evil simply because nothing external in itself cannot be either good or evil: it can only be manifestation internal good or evil.

... the question of the moral value of external physical coercion depends not on the “external physicality” of the influence and not on the “volitional intentionality” of the act, but on the state of the soul and spirit of the physically influencing person.

Physical coercion would be a manifestation of evil if, by its very essence, it were anti-spiritual And anti-loving. However, in reality it is not at all hostile to either spirit or love. It is a manifestation of the fact that the one who forces him does not turn into the forced one. directly to evidence and love, which are fundamentally and essentially completely unforced, and to his will, exposing it through the body to coercion or direct external restrictions.

…bad Types of physical coercion and suppression can spiritually harm the coerced, but this does not mean that all types of coercion are “evil” and “harmful.”

It must be admitted that physical coercion and suppression is almost always unpleasant and often even mentally painful, and, moreover, not only for the coerced, but also for the coercer. But only a completely naive hedonist can think that everything “unpleasant” or “causing suffering” is evil, and everything “pleasant” and “causing pleasure” is good. In fact, it happens too often that evil is pleasant to people, and good is unpleasant

...it is precisely in suffering, especially when sent to a person in a wise measure, that the soul deepens, strengthens and gains its sight; and it is precisely in pleasures, especially when wise measures are not observed in them, that the soul indulges in evil passions and becomes blind.

...if physical coercion is necessary, but causes an evil feeling in the coerced person, then this does not mean that one should abstain from coercion, but means that first the coercion must take place, and Then must be accepted other, non-physical measures in order for the evil feeling to be overcome and transformed by the most embittered soul.

About power and evil

Apparently, in physical coercion and suppression as method of influence There are three points that may seem anti-spiritual and anti-love: first, an appeal to the human will as such besides the obvious and love, secondly, the impact on someone else’s will regardless of her consent and maybe even contrary to her consent, and thirdly, the impact on someone else’s will through the body forced.

However, physical coercion and suppression, while actually including all these three moments, does not become completely evil deed or "an evil way of communicating." It can be and it should be Not anti-spiritual and Not anti-love; This is its essential difference from violence, and it is to this extent and only to this extent that it is subject to spiritual and moral acceptance.

...turning inward is the first and necessary condition for the purification and transformation of the soul, if it is still capable of this. That is why the one who suppresses the external villainy of the villain is not the enemy of love and evidence, but also not their creative motivator, but only their necessary and faithful servant.

...evil would not be evil, but good-natured weakness, if it tolerated opposition.

... coercive and suppressive resistance does not at all become a manifestation of evil or an evil deed because it is transmitted to a person through his body.

Indeed, a person’s body is not higher than his soul and not more sacred than his spirit. It is nothing more than the external manifestation of his inner being or, what is the same, the materialized existence of his personality.

And if it is inevitable and permissible for a person to physically express sympathy, approval and acceptance to another, then it is equally inevitable and permissible for people to physically convey to each other lack of sympathy, disapproval and rejection, that is, spiritual condemnation, righteous anger, and volitional opposition.

His [the villain's] body is the territory of his malice, and this spiritually devastated territory is by no means extraterritorial for the alien spirit. Reverent awe before the body of a villain who does not tremble before the face of God is unnatural: it is a moral prejudice, spiritual cowardice, lack of will, and sentimental superstition. This trembling, which fetters a healthy and faithful impulse of spirit with some kind of psychosis, leads a person under the banner of “non-resistance to evil through violence” to complete non-resistance to evil, that is, to spiritual desertion, betrayal, complicity and self-corruption.

Physical influence on another person against his will is spiritually shown in life every time internal self-government betrays him and there are no mental and spiritual means to prevent the irreparable consequences of a mistake or evil passion. The one who pushes an unwary traveler away from the abyss is right, who snatches a bottle of poison from an embittered suicide, who strikes the aiming revolutionary in time on the arm, who knocks down an arsonist at the last minute, who drives blasphemous shameless people out of the temple, who rushes with a weapon at a crowd of soldiers. , raping a girl, who will tie up the insane and tame the possessed villain.

Not every use of force against a “dissenter” is violence. Rapist says to his victim: “you are a means for my interest and my lust,” “you are not an autonomous spirit, but an animate thing subordinate to me,” “you are at the mercy of my arbitrariness.” On the contrary, a person who creates compulsion or suppression on behalf of the spirit - does not make the forced person a means for his interest and his lust, does not deny his autonomous spirituality, does not invite him to become a submissive animate thing, does not make him a victim of his arbitrariness. But he seems to be saying to him: “Look, you are managing yourself inattentively, erroneously, insufficiently, badly, and you are on the eve of fatal irreparability,” or: “you are humiliating yourself, you are violently mad, you are trampling on your spirituality, you are possessed by the breath of evil, you are insane - and you destroy, and you perish, - stop, here I put the limit to this! And by this he does not destroy the spirituality of the madman, but lays the foundation for his self-restraint and self-construction; he does not humiliate his dignity, but forces him to stop his self-abasement; it does not trample on his autonomy, but demands its restoration; he does not “rape” his “convictions,” but shocks his blindness and introduces into his consciousness his unprincipledness; it does not strengthen his anti-love, but puts an end to his overflowing hatred. The rapist attacks, the suppressor repels. The rapist demands obedience to himself, the coercer demands obedience to the spirit and its laws. The rapist despises the spiritual nature in a person, the coercer honors him and protects him. The rapist hates selfishly, the one who stops is moved not by malice or greed, but by just, objective anger.

So, the entire teaching about the anti-spirituality and anti-love nature of physical coercion and suppression directed against a villain falls as untenable, as prejudice and superstition. What is anti-spiritual and anti-loving is not coercion or suppression, but vicious violence;

In fact, evil can and usually does manifest itself not only in the form of physical violence and associated physical torment. It would be naive to think that the activities of a villain are limited to physical attack, taking away property, wounding, rape and murder.

...physical violence is neither the only, nor the main, nor the most destructive manifestation of their villainy.

A person perishes not only when he becomes poor, starves, suffers and dies, but when he weakens in spirit and decays morally and religiously; not when it is difficult for him to live or impossible to maintain his existence, but when he lives humiliatingly and dies shamefully: not when he suffers or suffers deprivation and misfortune, but when he indulges in evil. And now it is much easier to bring a person to this self-surrender, to non-resistance, to obedience, to the enjoyment of evil and devotion to it, not by physical violence, but by other, softer means; Moreover, it is physical violence that often leads to the opposite result: to the purification of the soul, strengthening and tempering of the spiritual will.

Violence itself, with all its external brutality, carries its poison not so much to the body as to the spirit; murder itself, with all its tragic irreparability, is intended not so much for those killed as for those who remain alive.

That is why we must admit that external violence manifests evil and perpetuates its action, but evil is not at all determined and is not exhausted by external violence.

Formulation of the problem

All these preliminary studies and considerations, clearing the way and clarifying the prospect, now allow us to turn to the formulation of the main problem: the spiritual permissibility of resistance to evil through physical coercion and suppression.

Every problem only makes sense at given values and with their faithful experienced perception; outside of this, it falls or becomes meaningless, and then the one who nevertheless continues to resolve it in this form finds himself in the ridiculous position of a person who ostensibly works on imaginary values and then enthusiastically proclaims the absolute truth.

It makes sense to study the problem of the admissibility of resistance to evil through physical coercion and suppression only if the following conditions are present.

Firstly, if given true evil. Not his likeness, not a shadow, not a ghost, not external “disasters” and “sufferings,” not delusion, not weakness, not the “illness” of the unfortunate sufferer. There must be evil human will, poured out in external action.

Second correct perception evil, perception, Not passing, however, into his acceptance. As long as evil is not perceived by anyone, as long as not a single soul has seen the external act and has not seen the malice hidden behind it and realized in it, no one has either the basis or the reason to pose and resolve the problem of external resistance.

Third condition correct setting the problem is cash true love for good in the questioning and deciding soul. The problem of resistance to evil is not theoretical, but practical problem; its formulation, discussion and decision presuppose that a person not only perceives, contemplates or even studies the phenomena and actions of people, but evaluates them, connecting with them with a living, accepting and rejecting attitude, chooses, prefers and connects his well-being, his joy, your life and your destiny.

Fourth the condition for correct formulation of the problem is cash strong-willed attitude to the world process in the questioning and deciding soul. The practical nature of the question presupposes not only the presence of living love, but also the ability to volitional action, and, moreover, to volitional action not only within one’s own personality, but also beyond it - in relation to other people, to their evil activities and to the world process in which they are organically included.

Finally, fifthly, the problem of resisting evil through external coercion really arises and is correctly posed only on the condition that internal self-compulsion and mental compulsion turn out to be powerless to keep a person from committing crimes.

The absence of at least one of these conditions makes the question incorrect and the answer imaginary.

On the morality of flight

Posing the problem of the admissibility of fighting evil through physical resistance requires the philosopher, first of all, to have the correct spiritual experience in perception and experience evil, love And will and, further, - morality And religiosity. Because the whole problem is that morally noble the soul searches in its love - religiously faithful, strong-willed response to violent pressure external evil. To interpret this problem differently is to circumvent it or remove it from discussion.

And so L.N. Tolstoy and his followers try, first of all, to avoid this problem or to shed light on it by discussing it. Under the guise of resolving it, they are constantly trying to show the seeking soul that there is no such problem at all, because, firstly, there is no such terrible evil, but there are only delusions and mistakes that are harmless to another’s spirit, weaknesses, passions, sins and falls, suffering and disasters; secondly, if evil were revealed in other people, then one must turn away from it and not pay attention to it, not judge or condemn it for it - then it would be as if it would not exist; thirdly, this problem will not even occur to a loving person, because to love means to feel sorry for a person, not to cause him grief and to persuade him to love too, and otherwise not to interfere with him, so love excludes even “the possibility of thought "about physical resistance; fourthly, this is an empty problem, because a moral person cares about self-improvement and provides others with freedom of self-government, turning his will away from them and seeing “the will of God” in everything that happens; and, finally, fifthly, if we already fight external evil, then Always there are other, better and more expedient means and measures.

Thus, Count L.N. Tolstoy and his like-minded people accept and present their escape from this problem as a solution to it.

At the center of all the “philosophical” quests of L. N. Tolstoy is the question of the moral perfection of man; Strictly speaking, L.N. Tolstoy’s entire worldview was grown by him from moral experience...

Morality has become the highest, self-sufficient and the only value before which everything else has become worthless. His entire teaching is nothing more than morality, and in this lies and this determines everything that follows.

Tolstoy's morality as a philosophical teaching has two sources: firstly, living feeling of pitiful compassion, what he calls “love” and “conscience,” and, secondly, doctrinaire reason, which he calls “reason.”

His entire worldview can be reduced to the thesis, “one must love (pity), accustom oneself to this, for this one must abstain and work, find bliss in this, reject everything else.” And his entire teaching is a rational development of this thesis.

About sentimentality and pleasure

Even deeper and more defining connections connect the doctrine of "non-resistance" with meaningful the roots of all teaching. For the idea of “love”, conceived and put forward by L.N. Tolstoy, introduces such content into all his principles and conclusions, which predetermines the inaccuracy of almost all of his questions and answers.

"Love", glorified by his teaching, is, in essence, a feeling pitiful compassion, which can relate to any one specific creature, but can also capture the soul regardless, plunging it into a state of pointless tenderness and softness. It is precisely this feeling, taking root in the soul, capturing its deepest sensitivity and determining the direction and rhythm of its life, that brings it a whole series of dangers and temptations.

So, first of all, this feeling in itself gives the soul such pleasure, oh the fullness and possible severity of which are known only to those who experienced it.

This “good” can chain the soul to itself not by the power of its spiritual superiority and perfection, but by the power of its delightful bliss, and, further, precisely to the extent that it can lead to cooling and instinctive aversion from everything that is not this good or that does not lead to him. This can give rise to the practice and theory of moral enjoyment (“hedonism”), which distorts and forces obviousness, And worldview, and the basics of personal character.

A moral hedonist instinctively gravitates towards everything that evokes in him a state of blissful tenderness, and just as instinctively turns away from everything that threatens to disrupt, interrupt and extinguish this state.

It is also clear that moral hedonism damages not only evidence, but also person's character. The state of tenderness and dissolution not only does not include will, but dismisses it as a beginning, on the one hand, unnecessary, and on the other hand, straining, fettering and therefore interfering with dissolution and fluidity. For the will does not dissolve the soul, but gathers it and concentrates it;

The weak-willed love of a hedonistic moralist is rather "mood", easily coexistent with both lack of will and pointlessness. As a weak-willed mood, this love - sentimental, and as a pointless mood this love - aimless: it does not carry any spiritual tasks, neither spiritual responsibility.

Can such a weak-willed and sentimental character, consciously extinguishing the beginning of heroism in himself, sweetly drowning in a boundless and pointless mood and at the same time consciously asserting his rightness as the only and exemplary one for all people - can he pose and solve the heroic problem of resistance to evil?

It is also clear that sentimental love does not unite people, but separates them. In fact, if each person, following the rule of subjectivistic morality, left others to themselves, caring about his own moral sinlessness, then not fraternal unity would arise, but a scattering of passive atoms turned away from each other.

About nihilism and pity

The idea of love put forward by L.N. Tolstoy and his followers suffers, however, not only from the traits of pleasure, lack of will, sentimentality, egocentrism and anti-sociality. It describes and affirms as an ideal state a feeling in a certain sense unspiritual And antispiritual; and this feature of sentimental love has, perhaps, highest value for the problem of resistance to evil.

As has already been shown above, L. N. Tolstoy’s entire worldview was grown by him from moral experience, which replaced or supplanted all other sources of spirituality in a person, devaluing them or eliminating them completely.

Thus, moral experience replaces religious experience and takes his place. Morality is higher than religion; it judges all religious content by its criterion and affirms the limits of your experience as obligatory for religion.

Likewise, moral experience asserts its supremacy in the sphere of Sciences. Not seeing the spiritual intrinsic value of truth and its measurement, the moralist considers himself the supreme judge of everything that the scientist does: he judges his work and his objects, measuring everything by the measure of moral benefit and moral harm, judges, condemns and rejects it as an idle, empty matter and even depraved.

Scientific knowledge is considered from the point of view moral utilitarianism, and this gives the whole worldview the character of a peculiar scientific nihilism.

The same moral utilitarianism triumphs in relation to art. The intrinsic value of artistic vision is rejected, and art turns into a means serving morality and moral goals.

The moralist seeks to impose on art a nature alien to it and loses its originality, its dignity and its calling. He himself sees this, recognizes it and pronounces it in the form of a certain principle and teaching, and thereby gives his whole theory a peculiar feature. aesthetic nihilism.

Even more acute is the denial with which the moralist approaches law and the state. Spiritual necessity and spiritual function legal consciousness eludes him completely. This whole sphere of precious, soul-nurturing spiritual experience says nothing to his personal well-being; he sees here only the most superficial appearance of events and actions; he qualifies this appearance as brutal "violence" and arbitrarily characterizes the intentions hidden behind this "violence" as evil, vindictive, self-interested and vicious.

Moral brotherhood embraces all people without distinction of race or nationality, and even more so regardless of their nationality: everyone deserves fraternal compassion, but no one deserves “violence”; we must give to the taking away enemy everything that he takes away, we must feel sorry for him for not having enough of his own, and invite him to resettle and life together in love and brotherhood. For man has nothing on earth that is worth defending for life and death, dying and killing.

The sentimental moralist does not see and does not understand that law is a necessary and sacred attribute of the human spirit, that every spiritual state of a person is a modification of law and rightness, and that it is impossible to protect the spiritual flourishing of humanity on earth without a compulsory social organization, outside the law, court and sword. Here his personal spiritual experience is silent, and the compassionate soul falls into anger and “prophetic” indignation. And as a result of this, his teaching turns out to be a variation legal, state and patriotic nihilism.

And this is what all life’s “wisdom” comes down to. Suffering is evil, it is the first, hidden axiom of this wisdom, from which everything else is derived. If suffering is evil, then so is causing suffering. (violence!) there is evil. On the contrary, the absence of suffering is good, and sympathy for the suffering of others is a virtue. This determines the fate of our main problem: in the fight against suffering, is it permissible to inflict new suffering, multiplying and complicating its overall volume and composition? The answer is clear: there is no point in heaping the Peleon on Ossa... “Satan cannot be driven out by “Satan”, “untruth” cannot be cleansed by “untruth”, “evil” cannot be defeated by “evil”, “dirt” cannot be washed away by “dirt”. And this is the answer only consistent: if suffering really is evil, then who will agree to increase its volume, striving to reduce this volume? Or - who will agree to enter the “path of the devil” in order not to enter it?..

Thus the fundamental principle of sentimental morality is revealed: it rests on anti-spiritual hedonism.

...life wisdom does not consist in fleeing from suffering as from an imaginary evil, but in accepting it as a gift and pledge, in using it and gaining inspiration through it. This acceptance must be made not only for oneself and for oneself, but also for others. It does not mean that a person will deliberately torment himself and his neighbors; but it means that a person will overcome the fear of suffering, will stop seeing evil in it and will not strive to stop it in come what may.

This sentimental hedonism teaches that there is nothing higher in the world for the sake of which people should suffer themselves and impose suffering on their neighbors. The whole task is for everyone to internally realize their suffering V compassion and thus paved their way to the highest pleasure.

This is the meaning and these are the consequences sentimental nihilism, put forward by L.N. Tolstoy and his followers as a one-saving, moral revelation.

About world-denying religion

One of the most significant consequences of this entire moral-nihilistic attitude is the peculiar practical hostility to peace, which serves as the last and most reliable refuge and cover for the “non-resisting”. This rejection of the outer world appears to spring from moral grounds, but is actually rooted in a vague and confused religious conception of the outer world.

The moralist, as has already been established, leads a life turned in on himself, and as a result of this he finds himself turned away from everything that is not his own soul, with its sometimes sinful and sometimes virtuous pleasures. This is precisely what explains the fact that L.N. Tolstoy has two directly opposite views on “nature” and “human society” - on these two great parts of the “external world”. According to first view, nature is divine and gracious. She was created by God, she is connected with him so much that her the law is His law. According to him, “the outside world is a world of discord, hostility and selfishness,” it “lies in evil and temptation,” and the “irresistible” “law of the struggle for the existence and survival of the most capable” reigns in it.

It is this view of the outside world as a deeply anti-moral environment that leads to preaching asceticism, simplification and non-resistance.

The moralist is a creature frightened and depressed by the exorbitant, obsessive, pretentious reality of his “body” and its instinctive drives. He experiences these drives as directed towards the outside world, as offensive, attacking: starting from the struggle for food and shelter, for property, wealth and power and ending with the aggressiveness of the sexual instinct and its struggle for possession. All this leads to “violence”; all this puts him on the “path of the devil” and draws him to mortal sin, all this awakens his “animal personality” in a person and turns him into a cruel beast; all this comes from the “external world” and pulls into the “external world”; all this should be kept to a minimum and, ideally, completely suppressed.

Ascetically rejecting in himself the beginning of “flesh” and “instinct” as the beginning of “external”, “anti-spiritual”, “violent” and evil, the moralist categorically demands that a person indulge in his physicality as little as possible, so that he reduces its needs to the most necessary and put all his bodily energy into the only worthy of a man, morally honest and honorable, not offending or exploiting anyone physical work. . We must descend to that level of primitive simplicity, which is “available to all people of the whole world,” so that everyone does only what All can do, and everyone would serve himself, without borrowing from others and without interfering with them doing what they want.

It is in connection with this rejection of the world that the requirement to refrain from an active, suppressive fight against evil also grows: the external world lies in evil and man is extremely limited in his knowledge of it; therefore, he must consistently extract his will from it, allowing the inevitable to happen.

Tolstoy wrote: suppose that “a villain raised a knife over his victim, I have a pistol in my hand, I will kill him, but I don’t know and can’t possibly know whether the one who raised the knife would have accomplished his intention or not. not to commit my evil intention, I will probably commit my evil deed."... No matter what happens in the external public life, a person must remember that everyone governs himself and only himself; we must remember this and not sin ourselves, and not think about the consequences, for they can never be available to us. It is arranged by God in such a way that each person is responsible only for himself and that no one has either the “right” or “the ability to arrange the lives of other people”; and therefore, at the sight of villainy, a person must “do nothing,” leaving the sinner to “repent or not repent, correct or not correct,” without interfering or invading his inner world, this sphere of God’s knowledge. Therefore, all I can do in defense of my neighbor who is being killed is to offer the villain the satisfaction of killing me; if he is not interested in my proposal and prefers to kill his victim, then all I have to do is see in this “the will of God”...

If the outer world “lies in evil” and the “eternal”, “irresistible law that rules it” is immoral, shouldn’t we, in fact, turn away and flee from the world, saving ourselves? And so the moralist frees man from the calling to participate in the great process of natural enlightenment and in the great historical battle between good and evil; and while instructing a person to such imaginary wisdom and righteousness, he, apparently, does not at all realize that his teaching implants anti-religious arrogance and blindness in souls.

It is precisely this lack of correct religious self-awareness that allows him to cover up his blind flight with a reference to the “will of God.” However, the sentimental moralist does not take this into account and puts forward the idea of “the will of God” every time he needs to cover up his own moralizing lack of will. He declares man's volitional participation in bearing the burden of the universe to be “crude superstition”; “true” faith consists in attributing everything that troubles his soul, “external” social evil, to the will of God. If we accept this teaching, it turns out that God “wants” not only for all people to love and pity each other, but also for very many people, not succumbing to the compassionate persuasion of others, to rage and commit crimes, physically raping and killing the virtuous and spiritually corrupting the weak-willed and children; and, further, it turns out that “God” absolutely “does not want” the activities of these ferocious scoundrels to meet with organized resistance and suppression. “God” allows you to persuade villains; expanding the scope of their villainy by offering themselves as victims - “God” also allows; but if someone, instead of providing the villains with more and more defenseless victims and giving them babies for spiritual corruption, becomes indignant and wants to stop their inexorable villainy, God will condemn this as blasphemy and atheism.

The religious experience of the moralist is unspiritual, weak-willed, one-sided and meager; his “religious teaching” is the product of a self-satisfied mind, trying to extract divine revelation from pointlessly touched pity. His whole religion is nothing more than morality of compassion. But this morality and its compassionate approach gives a person not the experience of God's perfection, but only experience of human compassion: she sees a tormented person and reduces all revelation to sympathy for this torment.

Real religion accepts the burden of the world as the burden of God in the world, but this teaching rejects the burden of the world and does not comprehend that this rejection of the world is fraught with rejection of God...

Such are the religious foundations of this sentimental morality. Her last word is religious lack of will And spiritual indifference and in this lack of will and indifference, she loses the objectivity and power of religious love and does not comprehend either its earthly tasks and paths, or its modifications and achievements in the world.

General Basics

When a morally noble soul seeks in its love a religiously faithful, strong-willed response to the violent pressure of evil from outside, then people who are timid, insincere, indifferent, irreligious, nihilistic, weak-willed, sentimental, not accepting of peace, not seeing evil can only hinder this quest, confusing, distorting and leading it to the wrong paths.

The question of the admissibility of external coercion and suppression is posed correctly only if it is posed on behalf of living goodness, historically struggling in the history of mankind with a living element of evil. Is it permissible that in this struggle, representatives of genuine living good mentally coerce weak people and physically coerce and suppress the activities of the evil ones, influencing their evil-doing souls and evil-doing bodies, and if it is permissible, then to what extent, under what conditions and in what forms? The whole question is posed Not on behalf of the villain, but on behalf of the one who loves good and wholeheartedly, sincerely serves him.

About resisting evil by force. Moral justification of violence in I.A.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents