Moral state. Generally, one understands moral state to be any situation in which man finds himself with respect to the beings that surround him, along with the relations dependent on them.

One can divide all the moral states of human nature into two general categories: the first are primitive states , and the others, are secondary states .

Primitive states are those in which man finds himself placed by the sovereign master of the world and independent of any human event or act.

Such is, first, the state of his dependence in relation to God, because, should man use his faculties and study himself, he recognizes that it is from this first being that he has life, reason, and all the advantages that come with them; and in all of this, he markedly experiences the effects of the power and the goodness of the Creator.

Another primitive state of man is that of men in relation to each other. They all have a common nature, the same faculties, the same needs, the same desires. They could not do without one another, and it is only by mutual aid that they can achieve an enjoyable and peaceful life. One therefore notices in men a natural inclination that brings them closer in order to form an exchange of services, from where the common good of all and the particular advantage of each originates.

But since man by his nature is a free being, it is necessary to introduce substantial modifications to his primitive state and to give, by means of diverse institutions, a new side to life: this gives rise to the secondary states that are solely the work of man. See Secondary state.

We only point out here this difference between the primitive state and the secondary state , that, the former being attached to the nature of man and to his constitution, is by this very trait common to all humans. Such is not the case with secondary states , which assume a human deed and could not suit all humans indiscriminately, but only those among them who enjoy them or who obtained them for themselves.

Let us add that several of these secondary states , provided that they are not incompatible, can, as it were, be combined and united in the same person; thus one may be simultaneously a head of a household, a judge, a magistrate, etc.

Such are the ideas that one must understand about the diverse moral states of man and it is from this understanding that the complete system of humanity results. They are like so many wheels of a machine, which when combined together and skillfully managed, strive for the same goal; but which, conversely, when being improperly driven and badly led, manage to clash and destroy each other. [1]

Notes

1. The word état , translated throughout this article as “state,” also means status. This becomes clear toward the end when Jaucourt refers to three different states (head of a household, judge, magistrate) united in a single individual, which in English we would turn around to say that a single individual inhabits three different states, understood as social roles or social positions. In Old Regime France, such status categories were grounded in law and the basis of privileges differentially enjoyed. As such, they were constitutive of the society of ranks and orders that contrasted with the natural equality of what Jaucourt calls the “primitive state” of all men in relation to God and to each other. In the eighteenth century, these “secondary states” defined one’s identity in terms of one’s place in society, the family, the economy, and before the law and the state.