ABSTRACT Berkeley argues in Passive Obedience that what he calls morality is based on the divine laws of nature, which God gave us and whose validity is like that of the principles of geometry. One of these laws is the categorical demand for loyalty to the supreme political power. This is to say, rebellious action is strictly impermissible and passive obedience is morally required: we may disobey but only in terms of action omission and then we must accept the penalty or punishment. This paper clarifies the logic of Berkeley’s argument and evaluates the acceptability of his results, especially when he considers possible exceptions in the case of a tyrant, usurper, and mad prince. What should one do? We may ‘sit still and pray for better times’ and think of the day of divine judgement; is this enough when a citizen is under a tyrannical political rule? Can we trust the good will of magistrates, or expect God’s help? Berkeley speaks of your moral duty to supreme power but in the last part of his treatise he also mentions the possibility of two competing princes, or no supreme power.

中文翻译：

---

伯克利的被动服从：忠诚的逻辑

摘要伯克利在被动服从中认为，他所谓的道德是基于上帝赋予我们的神圣自然法则，其有效性类似于几何原理。其中一项法律是对最高政治权力忠诚的明确要求。这就是说，叛逆行为是绝对不允许的，被动服从是道德上的要求：我们可以不服从，但仅限于不作为，然后我们必须接受惩罚或惩罚。本文阐明了伯克利论证的逻辑，并评估了他的结果的可接受性，尤其是在他考虑了暴君、篡位者和疯王子的情况下可能存在的例外情况时。一个人应该怎么做？我们可以“静坐，祈求美好的时光”，并思考上帝审判的日子；当一个公民处于专制的政治统治之下时，这就够了吗？我们可以相信地方法官的善意，还是期待上帝的帮助？伯克利谈到了你对最高权力的道德责任，但在他论文的最后一部分，他还提到了两个相互竞争的王子或没有最高权力的可能性。