Conclusion:
Universal ethics must be understood and confirmed on an individual and rational basis through the study of philosophy.
"Right and Ethics, and the actual world of justice and ethical life are understood through thoughts; through thoughts they are invested with a rational form i.e. with universality and determinacy" (p. 259)
Premises:
The content of the ethical world is inherently rational
The form that this rationality manifests in is however usually not rational (p. 256)
The State is endowed with a manifestation of "reason as it actualizes itself in the element of self-consciousness" (p. 257)
The State imposes this ethic upon the people it is set to govern (as per its function)
The majority of people will follow this law as dictated by social norms and subjectivity's influence through emotionality/guilt (p. 259)
This same emotionality can manifest in an opposing way such that the populace doesn't trust the state and is critical of it (p. 261)
This is due to the fact that there is a pluralism of different ideas regarding the nature of ethical life (p. 256).
These ideas are however wrong and caused by the same agent as the same superficial and subjective causes of mindless law-abiding (p. 256)
One can only reconcile the law of the state, reason, and ethics through an individualistic study of philosophy and apprehending these truths from a purely rational standpoint, thereby achieving an objectivity that was impossible prior to the study (p. 263-264)
Hegel’s unabashed requirement for the necessity of compliance with the demands of our State is of an interesting breed. Spinoza suggested something similar, but not quite the same, in his work on politics, the Theological-Political Treatise. In it, Spinoza suggests that it is always in the interest of the individual to follow even a bad law because, in doing so, the individual protects the sanctity of the state, and avoids any kind of punishment violation of the law may have incited. Both of these arguments for compliance rely on pragmatic grounds, a kind of argument for the greater good, or lesser evil. Spinoza assumes it is in the interest of the individual to have a state in place and to avoid punishment, thus the lesser evil of compliance is the reasonable choice.
ReplyDeleteHegel’s argument seems to be of quite a different nature. For Hegel, it seems that the State is responsible for what is ethical, as he says, “The State is the self-conscious ethical substance…” (535). In this way, the only ethical option in any circumstance is to follow the law of the State. In effect, for Hegel, there cannot be a bad law, ethically speaking. *
This position has powerful implications. It amounts to a kind of political relativism as concerns ethics, and it seems, if the state is responsible for what is ethical, there can be no right of revolution in Hegel’s philosophy. The people are left with very little self-determination. With these implications in mind it seems crucial to understand how the State arrives at such a power.
It appears to be Spirit that imbues the State with its ethical clout, it being the Spirit of the people that directs the State and ties it to its people. It seems odd then, that Spirit, a collective conscious that must be in someway dependent on the individuals that make it up, can manifest itself in the State without any specific political vehicle for this movement, from the people to the State. In other words, it is strange to think that the collective conscious of the people under a State might give so great a weight to the decrees of that State without a political institution aimed at communicating the voice of the governed, those who constitute Spirit. Beyond simply not requiring that the constituents of Spirit have any say in their State empowered by this force, Hegel prefers they have no voice at all. In naming monarchy as the most ideal form of State (“the state…”), Hegel makes clear that his perfect State, empowered as it is as the “ethical substance” (535) through the embodiment of Spirit, is one in which the individual minds composing Spirit have no voice at all, save that of the monarch. For the constituents of the State, voiceless and ethically bound, Hegel offers only what comfort comes of faith in his metaphysical claims, faith that the State is guided by the light of Spirit.
*Hegel does however seem to allow for unreasonable laws.
** To be a little more charitable, this image of the state as our savior from anarchy, our framework for objective freedom and our ethical guiding light may have been much more palatable before Europe witnessed the events of two world wars.
The idea of plurality of idea or unity Leads me to thinking of the concept of unity of knowledge which from what I understand of Hegel's definitions to History, His approach is constituted in too different Directions; One he calls ontological unity where he lays it in The presumption of world unity which can be perceived by man And accessible to al. The other direction is what he calls it's unity of knowledge Resumed in a unity of construction based on cognitive principles And structures.
ReplyDeleteThony you made the same point differently but it touches basically on the same idea Hegel implied and you broke it down with your example of bearing arms.
A man is usually pursuing his/her freedom, but how individualistic can he be when he adheres to what is universally recognized and valid? As Hegel mentions, “the unsophisticated heart” thinks with conviction that what is universally accepted is truth (256). Therefore, a man will accept any rules or laws by the state or government so he does not have to deal with the guilt and compromise his relationships with others. As mention on previous discussions, the man needs to feel accepted, and he will give away part of his freedom to accomplish this.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Hegel is saying that the individual should simply accept the ethics put forth by the State as rational and universal, and those that argue that it is impossible to discover such a universality are creating a problem that was not there to begin with (256). However, how can ethics evolve if we simply accept what the State tells us as true? Doesn't there have to be some sort of reaction against certain aspects of the State's ethics in order to move to a higher level of ethics, as per Hegel's dialectic? Indeed, movements such as the French Revolution, which ultimately caused many countries to consider a more ethical form of State, would not have been possible if individuals had simply accepted the State's reason as a universal truth.
ReplyDelete