When, in a nation, a despotic ruler grows powerful and the pillars of oppression are erected, it is necessary to effect changes. Whenever possible, they should employ good counsel and perfect advice to repel oppression. If they can, they should change the pillars of tyranny and install reformers in the place of the corrupt. If the despotic king declines to halt the oppression and to change his ministers, then naturally those who are able have the obligation to stop the oppression themselves. They should not, however, senselessly shed blood or slaughter individuals. Rather, they should employ advice and divine counsel to defeat those criminals and to change conditions. For, the power of those tyrants derives from the mob. Whenever these throngs are scattered, the despot's power is weakened. Naturally, in this situation this course of action is more insightful and more prudent.
Subh-i-Azal
Related topics
able
action
advice
blood
change
counsel
course
defeat
divine
effect
employ
good
halt
install
king
mob
nation
necessary
obligation
oppression
perfect
place
possible
power
ruler
should
shed
situation
slaughter
stop
tyranny
conditions
Related quotes
That is adultery where woman submits herself sexually to man, without desire on her part, for the sake of "keeping him virtuous," "keeping him at home," the women say. (Well, if a man did not love me and respect himself enough to be "virtuous" without prostituting me, - he might go, and welcome. He has no virtue to keep.) And that is rape, where a man forces himself sexually upon a woman whether he is licensed by the marriage law to do it or not. And that is the vilest of all tyranny where a man compels the woman he says he loves, to endure the agony of bearing children that she does not want, and for whom, as is the rule rather than the exception, they cannot properly provide. It is worse than any other human oppression; it is fairly God-like! To the sexual tyrant there is no parallel upon earth; one must go to the skies to find a fiend who thrusts life upon his children only to starve and curse and outcast and damn them!
Voltairine de Cleyre
What! when it is necessary to take the most simple resolve, we are under the domination of our habitudes, our wants, our social relations, and a host of causes which, all of them, draw us about in a hundred different ways. These influences are so powerful, that we have no difficulty in telling, even when referring to persons whom we are scarcely acquainted with, or even know not at all, what is the resolution to which they will lead such parties. Whence, then, this certainty of foresight, exemplified by you daily, if you were not convinced, at the outset, that it is extremely probable the empire of causes will carry it over free-will. In considering the moral world a priori, you give to this free-will the most entire latitude; and when you come to practice, when you speak of what passes around you, you constantly fall into contradiction with yourselves.
Adolphe Quetelet
The Machine Age's commitment to cause and effect was the source of many dilemmas, including the one involving free will. At the turn of the century the American philosopher E. A. Singer, Jr., showed that science had, in effect, been cheating. It was using two different relationships but calling both cause and effect. He pointed out, for example, that acorns do not cause oaks because they are not sufficient, even though they are necessary, for oaks. An acorn thrown into the ocean, or planted in the desert or an Arctic ice cap does not yield an oak. To call the relationship between an acorn and an oak ‘probabilistic' or ‘non deterministic causality,' as many scientists did, was cheating because it is not possible to have a probability other than 1.0 associated with a cause; a cause completely determines its effect. Therefore, Singer chose to call this relationship ‘producer-product' and to differentiate it from cause-effect.
Russell L. Ackoff