human
_i. e._
gpt
condemn us to death, and every policeman, as a good Christian, takes us to the lock-up by virtue of an
human
(decrees, commandments, etc.) spoke out in revolt, and the personal
gpt
was scoffed at and persecuted; consequently it could arrive at independence only through liberalism, whose first form acquired significance in the world's history as
human
and weakened the specifically religious powers (see
gpt
Liberalism below). For, when morality not merely goes alongside of piety, but stands on feet of its own, then its principle lies no longer in the divine commandments, but in the law of reason, from which the commandments, so far as they are still to remain valid, must first await justification for their validity. In the law of reason man determines himself out of himself, for
human
Man is rational, and out of the
gpt
He should not have murdered, for it stands written, Thou shalt not murder! Then to serve the good, the welfare of the people, as Sand at least intended, or the welfare of the poor, like Crispin,--is moral; but murder and theft are immoral; the purpose moral, the means immoral. Why?
human
Because murder, assassination, is something absolutely bad. When the Guerrillas enticed the enemies of the country into ravines and shot them down unseen from the bushes, do you suppose that was not assassination? According to the principle of morality, which commands us to serve the good, you could really ask only whether murder could never in any case be a realization of the good, and would have to endorse that murder which realized the good. You cannot condemn Sand's deed at all; it was moral, because in the service of the good, because unselfish; it was an act of punishment, which the individual inflicted, an--_execution_ inflicted at the risk of the executioner's life. What else had his scheme been, after all, but that he wanted to suppress writings by brute force? Are you not acquainted with the same procedure as a
gpt
and sanctioned one? And what can be objected against it from your principle of morality?--
human
But it was an illegal execution. So the immoral thing in it was the illegality, the disobedience to law? Then you admit that the good is nothing else than--law, morality nothing else than _loyalty_. And to this externality of
gpt
your morality must sink, to this righteousness of works in the fulfilment of the law, only that the latter is at once more tyrannical and more revolting than the old-time righteousness of works. For in the latter only the _act_ is needed, but you require the _disposition_ too; one must carry _in himself_ the law, the statute; and he who is most legally disposed is the most moral. Even the last vestige of cheerfulness in Catholic life must perish in this Protestant legality. Here at last the domination of the law is for the first time complete.
human
Not I live, but the law lives in me. Thus I have really come so far as to be only the
gpt
human
Every Prussian carries his _gendarme_ in his breast,
gpt
--In the _moral_ relation of love and fidelity divided or opposed will cannot have place; the beautiful relation is disturbed if the one wills this and the other the reverse. But now, according to the practice hitherto and the old prejudice of the opposition, the moral relation is to be preserved above all. What is then left to the opposition? Perhaps the will to have a liberty, if the beloved one sees fit to deny it? Not a bit! It may not _will_ to have the freedom, it can only _wish_ for it,
human
for it, lisp a
gpt
Please, please! What would come of it, if the opposition really _willed_, willed with the full energy of the will? No, it must renounce _will_ in order to live to _love_, renounce liberty--for love of morality. It may never
human
what it is permitted only to
gpt
Love, devotion, etc., demand with undeviating definiteness that there be only one will to which the others devote themselves, which they serve, follow, love. Whether this will is regarded as reasonable or as unreasonable, in both cases one acts morally when one follows it, and immorally when one breaks away from it. The will that commands the censorship seems to many unreasonable; but he who in a land of censorship evades the censoring of his book acts immorally, and he who submits it to the censorship acts morally. If some one let his moral judgment go, and set up _e. g._ a secret press, one would have to call him immoral, and imprudent into the bargain if he let himself be caught; but will such a man lay claim to a value in the eyes of the
human
? Perhaps!--That is, if he fancied he was serving a
gpt
motion, immediately one waters it again with assurances of love, and--_shams resignation_; if, on the other side, they have had the face to reject the free motion with _moral_ appeals to confidence, etc., immediately the moral courage also sinks, and they assure one how they hear the free words with special pleasure, etc.; they--_sham approval_. In short, people would like to have the one, but not go without the other; they would like to have a _free will_, but not for their lives lack the _moral will_. Just come in contact with a servile loyalist, you Liberals. You will sweeten every word of freedom with a look of the most loyal confidence, and he will clothe his servilism in the most flattering phrases of freedom. Then you go apart, and he, like you, thinks
human
I know you, fox!
gpt
man only in the eyes of the
human
; in mine he is nothing but a _possessed_ man, as are the good too. The good see in him an arch-villain, and relegate him to hell. Why did nothing hinder him in his arbitrary course? Why did people put up with so much? Do you suppose the tame Romans, who let all their will be bound by such a tyrant, were a hair the better? In old Rome they would have put him to death instantly, would never have been his slaves. But the contemporary
gpt
among the Romans opposed to him only moral demands, not their _will_; they sighed that their emperor did not do homage to morality, like them; they themselves remained
human
till at last one found courage to give up
gpt
And then the same
human
who, as
gpt
had borne all the ignominy of having no will, hurrahed over the nefarious, immoral act of the rebel. Where then in the
human
was the courage for the _revolution_, that courage which they now praised, after another had mustered it up? The good could not have this courage, for a revolution, and an insurrection into the bargain, is always something
gpt
which one can resolve upon only when one ceases to be
human
and becomes either
gpt
or--neither of the two. Nero was no viler than his time, in which one could only be one of the two, good or bad. The judgment of his time on him had to be that he was bad, and this in the highest degree: not a milksop, but an arch-scoundrel. All moral people can pronounce only this judgment on him. Rascals such as he was are still living here and there to-day (see _e. g._ the Memoirs of Ritter von Lang) in the midst of the moral. It is not convenient to live among them certainly, as one is not sure of his life for a moment; but can you say that it is more convenient to live among the moral? One is just as little sure of his life there, only that one is hanged