Conclusion: The state is the manifestation of the collective
will of a nation, applied through reason. As such it provides for the unity,
equality and liberty of its citizens through the rule of law.
“The State is the self-conscious ethical substance, the
unification of the family principle with that of civil society. The same unity,
which is in the family as the feeling of love, is its essence, receiving,
however, at the same time through the second principle of conscious and
spontaneously active volition the form of conscious universality.” (535)
“The essence of the state is the universal, self-originated
and self-developed- the reasonable spirit of will…” (537)
Premises:
1)
The State is established by a constitution. (540).
2)
A constitution is the actualization of the
collective will, or spirit, of a nation (540).
-Constitutions are not written or created but develop alongside the collective will as its real or actualized component (540).
-A constitution exists wherever there is a State; it is what gives the State reality. (540)
-Constitutions are not written or created but develop alongside the collective will as its real or actualized component (540).
-A constitution exists wherever there is a State; it is what gives the State reality. (540)
3)
The State, in order to maintain the unity of its
citizens as a collective whole, applies to all of civil life that which exists
as love within the family (535).
-Love provides for the unity of the family.
-The unifying function of love, if not its concrete sentiment, may be adopted by the State and applied to its constituents.
-Love provides for the unity of the family.
-The unifying function of love, if not its concrete sentiment, may be adopted by the State and applied to its constituents.
4)
What is love in the family is rule of law in the
State.
5)
What is love in the family becomes rule of law
in the State through the process of reason.
-Reason makes universally applicable that which is subject to it.
- Love, subject to reason, and expressed by the State, is formulated into rule of law, which applies to all citizens universally, rather than to individual families.
-Reason makes universally applicable that which is subject to it.
- Love, subject to reason, and expressed by the State, is formulated into rule of law, which applies to all citizens universally, rather than to individual families.
6)
Rule of law provides for unity in the State as
love provides for unity in the family.
7)
Rule of law provides for equality before the law
for the constituents of the State.
- Rule of law is universal, being formed through reason. Universals apply to all equally.
- Equality before the law is the only occasion when equality exists between people. (People are not equal by nature, or in their influence in civil life.) (p. 286).
- Rule of law is universal, being formed through reason. Universals apply to all equally.
- Equality before the law is the only occasion when equality exists between people. (People are not equal by nature, or in their influence in civil life.) (p. 286).
8)
Rule of law provides for collective liberty,
what the author terms “objective freedom”* (p. 287).
- “Objective freedom” is the freedom that comes about by membership in a State that has reasonable laws. It is the freedom to participate in the accomplishment of the goals of the collective will.
-The laws of the State direct the collective will through reason.
-The State, through its laws, makes participation in the goals of the collective will, the instantiation of collective liberty, possible.
- “Objective freedom” is the freedom that comes about by membership in a State that has reasonable laws. It is the freedom to participate in the accomplishment of the goals of the collective will.
-The laws of the State direct the collective will through reason.
-The State, through its laws, makes participation in the goals of the collective will, the instantiation of collective liberty, possible.
*This stands in contrast with subjective freedom, which is
the freedom of the individual to pursue his or her whims and pleasures. This
form of freedom is subordinate to objective freedom, which is defined by the
collective will, or spirit, of the people. Subjective freedom is a lesser form
of freedom in that it is self-limiting (in order to preserve your subjective
freedom I have to limit mine and vice versa) and in that the desire for
subjective freedom can only arise in an environment of objective freedom, in
which the objective freedom is taken for granted.
I find it interesting that when Hegel was writing this, the rule of law, even if it existed as an ideal, wasn't practiced in full. Legally-sanctioned discrimination was rampant; from voting restrictions on the poor, to holding slaves as 3/5ths of a person, to equating women with property, it's clear that not everybody was "equal" under the law.
ReplyDeleteThis is a problem even today, here in america. The clearest example is the legal institution of marriage, and its discrimination against gay couples in so many states.
On second thought about my above comment, you did say: "Rule of law provides for equality before the law for the CONSTITUENTS of the State."
ReplyDeleteI guess at Hegel's time, the poor, the slaves and the women did not count as constituents.
But homosexuals today do count as them.
At first it seemed like Hegel could be considered a "Democrat", but given the point Zac pointed out maybe not. Aside from the part of Premise 7 where you stated "Rule of law provides for equality...for the constituents of the State", another point in this premise that stood out is where you state "Equality before the law is the only occasion when equality exists between people." The part that I highly disagree with Hegel is the fact that "people are not equal by nature". This statement to me seems to go against the very nature of Democracy. Is it not the idea that all men and women are Equal, as in all humanity is equal? Furthermore, would not being "Human" or "Humanity" in itself be considered a Universal? Perhaps his definition of "equal" is different from mine. Given Hegel's view on equality it's no wonder why the fight for equality seems to never be over. Also, applying this idea to today still seems to be a contradiction, as certain groups today who are acknowledged as "constituents" , still face inequality, even before the law.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the point Zac pointed to; because it just tells us how much rule of law doesn't seem to prove in our days or even, back in the time of Hegel to serve the purpose hegel mentioned as proposed in this blog. The argument that the rule of law provoques equality or collective liberty as specified on the seventh and eighth premises of Blog above.
ReplyDeleteThe rule of law in today’s politics and the importance of the rule of law is to set limits on both those who govern and are governed, to protect individual rights and promot the common good. This process is important because it contributes to a well-constructed community where the government must be fair in its procedures and decision-making to protect the interest of society. This is the sense we get and wish for but unfortunately
many might not agree that in fact it is what the rule of law has been doing so far because of the so many gaps out their, unanswered calls. Is everyone call possibly going to ever get a positive answer or in other words would every individual of the society going to be satisfied ? Would that mean that rule of law has reached it's goal to provoking equality and collective liberty?
Equality under the law does seem idealistic here, but given that a constitution correlates with development of a nation, Hegel probably needed to justify and account for whatever political institutions were in place for their own sakes and in their movement through history. His principles embrace the moments that converge upon a government, in which the parts must be held above fluctuating personal opinions but always work in unity with the whole system (291). Accordingly, law should reflect humanity and its consciousness to be able to conceive of equality, looking beyond the variety of unequal conditions that nature cannot rectify.
ReplyDeleteAs the majority of old European philosophers, his ideas seem to connote equality and democracy, but do not coincide with the politics actually occurring, and the oppression rampant in the politics of this time. This is because the Racial Contract implicit within social contract theory of the European project, I'd recommend Racial Contract by Mills to anyone confused as to why the Universal Laws, dont seem to apply to everyone. Women, nonwhites, slaves, they were all actually subpersons in the eyes of Social Contract theorists who are saying all men are equal, really mean "all white, property owning men are equal."
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, this idea of objective freedom is really interesting, and i'm not sure how its actually a freedom.