May a subject ever resist the sovereign?

Translation: quotations from Samuel von Pufendorf are quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes), not his original words.

OCR: 10 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that the Magistrate's power does not extend to establishing articles of faith or forms of worship by the force of laws, because penalties cannot convince the mind or produce belief. He argued that only light and evidence can change opinions, not corporal sufferings or penalties. [1]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that a subject may resist the sovereign if the sovereign's actions are injurious to the public good and amount to a conspiracy or tyranny. He argued that true union must serve the public good, and when it does not, it becomes a conspiracy rather than a legitimate union. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that subjects may resist the sovereign in cases of barbarous cruelty. He argued that the inference that supreme authority is accountable only to God does not justify the conclusion that subjects have no right to resist, and he rejected the argument that subjects need a lawful call to take up arms against the chief magistrate in such cases. [3]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that a subject may not resist the sovereign, even in cases of perceived injustice, because doing so would involve breaking the laws of the country, which every good subject is bound to obey. He argued that subjects should yield to the sentence passed upon them by the government and not return injury upon the state or pretend that it has been unjust. [4]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that a subject cannot lawfully refuse what the prince lawfully enjoins, but whether subjects may resist unreasonable injunctions is a separate question to be discussed elsewhere. [5]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that a subject may resist the sovereign when the sovereign is expelled and another ruler is in possession, and when resistance is necessary to prevent further troubles. He argued that an honest man and a lover of his country should not resist by undue means when the posture of affairs requires such proceeding. [6]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that a magistrate who uses force only to reduce a few disobedient subjects is not making war, but if the number of malecontents grows so large that common officers of justice are too weak to reduce them, the magistrate ought to expect the resolutions of his sovereign to direct him in his proceedings. This implies that resistance by subjects may be justified when the sovereign fails to act or provide adequate direction in suppressing disobedience. [7]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believed that there is no covenant between subjects and their sovereign, and therefore subjects are not released from their obedience when the sovereign breaks faith. He argued that subjects voluntarily subject themselves to a prince, promising obedience and receiving protection, but this does not create a covenant that subjects can use as a basis for resistance. (key quote above) [8]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf discusses whether a subject may resist a lawful prince in the case of grievous injury and oppression, indicating that the question is addressed in Section 5 of this chapter. [9]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in Basil Kennett's 1729 English translation (with others; 4th edition, with Barbeyrac's notes)): Samuel von Pufendorf believes that a private member may suffer injury from the state and is capable of being injured by it, but the main question is whether such injury justifies resistance. He acknowledges the possibility of grievous injury and oppression by a lawful prince, but does not affirm that resistance is lawful in such cases. "The main Queftion therefore muft appears no reafon why we fhould not atfirm that a private Mtmber is capable of being y;//K?-'c^ by the State, to which he belongs." [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1], [2], [3], [4].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Samuel von Pufendorf acknowledged that the question of whether subjects may resist unreasonable injunctions is a separate issue to be discussed elsewhere, indicating that the possibility of resistance is not entirely dismissed. [5]

2. He denied the existence of a covenant between subjects and their sovereign, implying that subjects are not released from their obligations even if the sovereign breaks faith. [8]

3. He argued that subjects should not resist the sovereign in cases of perceived injustice because it would involve breaking the laws of the country, which every good subject is bound to obey. [4]

4. He believed that resistance may be justified if the sovereign's actions are injurious to the public good and amount to a conspiracy or tyranny. [2]

5. This suggests that while resistance is generally discouraged, it may be permissible under specific conditions, particularly when the sovereign's actions harm the public good. [2]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific conditions under which resistance is permissible and the extent to which subjects may resist the sovereign. However, it does indicate that resistance may be justified in cases of public harm or tyranny.

Extrapolation: Samuel von Pufendorf likely believed that subjects may resist the sovereign under specific conditions, particularly when the sovereign's actions are injurious to the public good or amount to a conspiracy or tyranny. However, he generally discouraged resistance, emphasizing the importance of obedience to the sovereign's lawful commands.

Competing readings: One reading is that resistance is permissible when the sovereign's actions harm the public good or constitute tyranny. Another reading is that resistance is generally not permissible, as it involves breaking the laws of the country. The record itself supports both readings, but the latter is more explicitly stated.

Confidence: Moderate, due to the partial coverage and the presence of competing readings in the record.