Commentary: The Morality of Consciousness

The commentator states five premises explaining how moral subjectivity is the free will of an individual to choose to do good or wickedness.  The first and second premises in particular state the agent or individual ought to look after his own interest and that of society and the individual is responsible for judging what is right and wrong. What is deemed right by the agent or individual may be opposing the good. In other words, the agent who is self-serving only will lose sight of the good and fall into wickedness. This leads me to the question: if self-serving will lead to wickedness, is the only form of good that which benefits society? Is it possible to do good by one’s own interest and still lead an ethical life?

Hegel states the free agent has the responsibility of distinguishing between good and wicked (503/269). The decision is not to come from religious or ethical principals only; instead the agent is to utilize these laws as well as intelligence, consciousness and heart (503/269-270). This is vital. This gives the agent full freedom and is not bind to merely obey what has been deemed by others to be right but the decision is truly to come from what the individual feels is the right thing to do. The individual is acting within their own right when choosing to do good that may not necessarily benefit society. It is important to note, a deed that does not benefit society is not synonymous to a deed that hurts society. Therefore, the agent is doing good by his/her own interest without the wickedness.

Hegel also states that the agent’s interest and well-fare is an aim and therefore a duty (509/272). However, when choosing to do good, Hegel admittedly expresses there are many different sorts of good and many different kinds of duty (508/271). There is vast room for contradictions and therefore it is once more up to the agent to be the mediator in deciding which among the many good and many duties he/she should follow without deviating from the good because “…the agent, as individual and universal, is always fundamentally one identity” (509/272). Therefore, even while being self-serving, it will be often when the good of the individual will mean to be the good of society though the intention may have been initially selfish. It seems to me that as long as an agent in choosing among the “many goods” and those choices do not hurt society, it is unlikely that they can fall into wickedness.

A response from Hegel to my commentary or question may be intention or aim. If the aim is to self-serve then ultimately the individual will fall into wickedness in an effort to obtain that aim with disregard of society’s well-being and nullify the universal (512/273). Hegel can also answer that in the event an individual is incorrect in their judgment of good, it is far easier to make that distinction in terms of the universal rather than the particular since the affected would be on a much grander scale. Lastly, if intentions of good are not universal but merely happens to be by accident then it is not an ethical life. The agent is not in that situation making a conscious internal decision to do a universal good. Thus, the individual is still running the risk of falling into wickedness eventually.