Hegel: Ethics

Hegel's lord-bondsman dialectic has been of especially great interest to progressive and radical Hegelians—broadly speaking, politically left-leaning interpreters of Hegel who object to certain social hierarchies and demand their abolition. They read Hegel as giving an account of how ‘lordship’ over others is an inherently unstable and unsatisfying social formation, even for its supposed beneficiaries. Marxists, feminists and post-colonial theorists have all found inspiration in Hegel's analysis of the lord and bondsman by applying it to concrete relations of oppression, such (...) as capitalism, patriarchy, or racism. In contrast, recent scholarship on Hegel's views on race and colonialism has cast doubt on whether his systematic political philosophy and philosophy of history can be of similar use to progressives. Hegel was undeniably a Eurocentric thinker, but philosophers like Robert Bernasconi and Alison Stone have convincingly shown that he was also a racist and a defender of colonialism. Crucially, however, few of the scholars who write on Hegel's pro-colonialism have analysed this feature of Hegel's thought in connection with the lord-bondsman dialectic. In this article, I argue for two connected theses. First, I argue that contrary to the hopes of some progressive defenders of Hegel, we cannot easily separate the lord-bondsman dialectic from Hegel's pro-colonialism. This is because Hegel himself appealed to the lord-bondsman dialectic to argue that colonial slavery educated its victims, and could therefore be temporarily justified. Second, I argue that this pro-colonial reading of the dialectic, though largely ignored by contemporary interpreters, was in fact recognized and embraced by a group of Hegelians in North America known as the St Louis Hegelians. They used the lord-bondsman dialectic as a basis for a qualified defence of pre-Civil War American slavery. (shrink)

A tragédia de Orestes, escrita pelo tragediógrafo grego Ésquilo, influenciou decisivamente o pensamento ético-político de Hegel. Em seu ensaio sobre o Direito Natural (1802-1803), o filósofo alemão associa seu conceito de absoluto com sua interpretação da tragédia grega, ato com o qual expõe sua concepção da vida ética absoluta, dando continuidade à ideia que havia esboçado, no âmbito teológico, em "O Espírito do cristianismo e seu destino", i.e., a de que o destino e a justiça trágica forneceriam os termos de (...) uma alternativa aos conceitos jurídicos kantianos e cristãos de justiça. Mas, em "Sobre as maneiras de tratar cientificamente o direito natural", Hegel vai além. Ele demonstra que o gênero trágico apresenta uma concepção de ética e política que pode ser uma alternativa às concepções modernas do direito natural, o que permite a Hegel opor a representação trágica da unidade da vida ética absoluta ao dualismo e às dicotomias que estruturam as teorias políticas de seu tempo. Essa intuição da tragédia propiciou ao filósofo compreender a vida ética absoluta como o verdadeiro fundamento da ética e da política. Enquanto tal, ela pressupõe, necessariamente, todas as teorias do Direito Natural. Hegel denomina essa representação da unidade da vida ético-política como "a representação da tragédia da vida ética". A obra emblemática e talvez até mesmo inspiradora dessa compreensão do direito natural é "Eumênides", de Ésquilo, peça que encerra a trilogia "Oresteia". A partir dela, Hegel desenvolve, no capítulo intitulado “a ciência especulativa e o direito natural”, sua concepção trágica da vida ética absoluta. É que a tragédia de Orestes expõe o problema político que Hegel quer resolver: as relações entre o universal e o particular, o todo e as partes, o Estado e o indivíduo, etc. Além de explicitar o problema político, a obra de Ésquilo também expõe a solução do que Hegel considera ser o conflito absoluto, i.e., o jogo das oposições (universal/particular, todo/partes, Estado/indivíduos) que consiste na essência da vida ética e política. Tal solução se dá, na peça, com o julgamento do herói, Orestes, e a consequente pacificação das Erínias, transformadas em Eumênides. Esse movimento é a culminação da trilogia "Oresteia" e ilustra o tipo de reconciliação que Hegel procurava produzir com sua Filosofia do Direito: a (re)organização da totalidade ética. (shrink)

A review of Butler's first book. An English version has been posted.

The creation of the University of Berlin in 1810 was the result of interaction between the state and philosophy, two human expressions whose relationship, at least since Socrates' death and Aristotle's exile, has tended to be problematical. That university, which became an important model for North American institutions of higher learning, was from the outset a state university; it was designed and run by the state, as opposed to what was previously the rule: institutions dependent on the Church or princes. (...) The bind, of course, is that this idea of a modern university, defined by its independence with regard to ecclesiastical and private interests, must henceforth depend on the state to guarantee its independence. This dilemma is already apparent in the philosophical ideas at work in the University of Berlin's early evolution. (shrink)

Against those who argue that Hegel despaired of providing a solution to the problem of poverty, I argue, on the basis of key dialectical transitions in Hegel's Philosophy of Right, that he held at least the following: (1) that the chronic poverty endemic to industrial capitalism can be overcome only through changes that must include a transformation in practices of consumption, (2) that this transformation must lead to more *sittlich* and self-conscious practices of consumption, and (3) that the institution best-suited (...) to enable the development of these more *sittlich* and self-conscious practices of consumption is the *Korporation*. (shrink)

One of the reasons why there is no Hegelian school in contemporary ethics in the way that there are Kantian, Humean and Aristotelian schools is because Hegelians have been unable to clearly articulate the Hegelian alternative to those schools’ moral psychologies, i.e., to present a Hegelian model of the motivation to, perception of, and responsibility for moral action. Here it is argued that in its most basic terms Hegel's model can be understood as follows: the agent acts in a responsible (...) and thus paradigmatic sense when she identifies as reasons those motivations which are grounded in his or her talents and support actions that are likely to develop those talents in ways suggested by his or her interests. (shrink)

When Hegel first addresses moral responsibility in the Philosophy of Right, he presupposes that agents are only responsible for what they intended to do, but appears to offer little, if any, justification for this assumption. In this essay, I claim that the first part of the Philosophy of Right, “Abstract Right”, contains an implicit argument that legal or external responsibility (blame for what we have done) is conceptually dependent on moral responsibility proper (blame for what we have intended). This overlooked (...) argument satisfies the first half of a thesis Hegel applies to action in the Encyclopaedia Logic, namely, that the outer must be inner, and thus provides a necessary complement for his more explicit treatment of the second half of that thesis, that the inner must be outer. The claim that agents are only responsible for what they intended to do might appear, at first, to risk conflating legal and moral responsibility and to lack the necessary means to deal with the phenomenon of moral luck, but I argue that if it is properly situated within the whole of Hegel's philosophy of action it can be saved from both of these consequences and so take its place as an essential component of Hegel's full theory of moral responsibility. (shrink)

This essay discusses how, for Hegel, freedom can be realized in nature in a rudimentary fashion in solar systems. This solves a problem in Kant’s account of freedom, namely, the problem that Kant only gives a negative argument for why freedom is not impossible but does not give a positive account of how freedom is real. I give a novel account of Kant’s negative argument. Then, I show how, according to Hegel, solar systems can be considered as exhibiting freedom in (...) a rudimentary fashion. Finally, I lay out how Hegel systematically develops this point about the freedom of solar systems in the ‘Mechanism’-chapter of the Science of Logic. In doing so, he uses Kant’s negative argument in a ‘purified’ form to arrive at an account of an ‘intimate token-type relation’ between the planets in a solar system and the law that governs their motion. The essay as a whole provides a concrete example of how Hegel is an inheritor and radicalizer of Kant, both with respect to freedom’s reality and with respect to philosophical method. (shrink)

This paper lays out two recent accounts of Hegel’s practical philosophy in order to present a challenge. According to Robert Stern and Mark Alznauer, Hegel attempts to ground our ethical practices in ontological norms. I argue that we cannot ground our ethical practices in this way. However, I also contend that Stern’s and Alznauer’s conception of reality as both conceptual and normative can still play a useful role in practical philosophy, namely, to help defuse a sceptical worry about a threat (...) to ethics. (shrink)

https://philpapers.org/asearch.pl?start=0&format=html&newWindow=on&freeOnly=&ap_c2=&publishedOnly=&o nlineOnly=off&ap_c1=&search_header=search_header.html&noFilter=1&limit=&direction=citations&hideAbst racts=&showCategories=on&sqc=&eId=KHUDLD&sort=firstAuthor&proOnly=off&langFilter=&filterByAreas=&cat egorizerOn=&jlist=&ap_c1=&ap_c2=.

Immanuel Kant's description of humans' first encounter with each other depicts a peaceful recognition of mutual worth. G.W.F. Hegel's by contrast depicts a struggle to the death. I argue in this paper that Hegel's description of conflict results in an ethical theory that better preserves the distinctness of the other. I consider Christine Korsgaard's description of first encounters as a third alternative but conclude that Hegel's approach better accounts for the specific commitments we make--as family members, works, and citizens --in (...) ethical life. (shrink)

Does Hegel have anything to contribute to moral philosophy? If moral philosophy presupposes the soundness of what he calls the 'standpoint of morality [Moralität]' (PR §137), then Hegel's contribution is likely to be negative. As is well known, he argues that morality fails to provide us with substantive answers to questions about what is good or morally required and tends to gives us a distorted, subject-centred view of our practical lives; moral concerns are best addressed from the 'standpoint of ethical (...) life [Sittlichkeit]' (ibid.). Hegel's criticism of morality has had a decisive influence in the reception of his thought. By general acknowledgement, while his writings support a broadly neo-Aristotelian ethics of self-actualization, his views on moral philosophy are exhausted by his criticisms of Kant, whom he treats as paradigmatic exponent of the standpoint of morality. My aim in this essay is to correct this received view and show that Hegel offers a positive argument about the nature of moral willing. (shrink)

Barbara Herman's account of rules of moral salience goes far in explaining how Kantian moral theory can integrate historically emergent normative criticisms such as that offered by feminists. The ethical motives that initially lead historical agents to expand our moral categories, however, are often at odds with Kant's (and Herman's) theory of moral motivations. I argue that Hegel offers a more accurate account of ethical motivation under oppressive conditions.

this is a review of Sally Sedgwick's Hegel's Critique of Kant (OUP 2012), published in Kant-Studien.

Author: Erzsébet Rózsa. Translated by Fernanda Medina and Pedro Sepúlveda Zambrano. La mujer correcta es la protagonista en el pensamiento maduro de Hegel. A decir verdad, ella nunca lo atrajo tanto como Antígona. Con todo, lo cierto es que él rebajó a Antígona: vulneró la singularidad de la grandeza del carácter de Antígona en la Fenomenología, mezcló su imagen de Antígona con rasgos modernos burgueses, y transfirió con ello algunas características de su singularidad a la imagen de la mujer en (...) el marco de la pequeña familia de la incipiente sociedad burguesa. Esta imagen fusionada de la grandeza de Antígona la acaba dañando, y tampoco ayuda a una interpretación y auto-interpretación apropiada de la mujer, o bien a la elucidación de sus roles sociales y de género en la modernidad naciente. Apartándose estrictamente de esta imagen mezclada, en la Filosofía del derecho Hegel ha ofrecido una imagen comprensible hasta el día de hoy, y en muchos sentidos aún relevante, acerca de los diferenciados roles sociales y de género, adecuados a las expectativas de la incipiente sociedad moderna, o bien acerca de una correspondiente auto-interpretación y autodeterminación para la mujer de la modernidad naciente. La mujer comparte del mismo modo con el hombre la orientación subjetiva-normativa en la actitud práctica: ella debe apropiar y ejercitar correctamente sus roles sociales y de género. Pero todas estas expectativas se encuentran muy alejadas de la grandeza de Antígona. Con ello Hegel abrió una perspectiva a través de su comprensión de la fragilidad de la existencia humana en la modernidad, en medio de la cual mujeres y hombres cuestionamos cada vez el sentido de nuestra propia existencia. (shrink)

Many interpreters argue that irrational acts of exchange can count as rational and civic-minded for Hegel—even though, admittedly, the persons who are exchanging their property are usually unaware of this fact. While I do not want to deny that property exchange can count as rational in terms of ‘mutual recognition’ as interpreters claim, this proposition raises an important question: What about the irrationality and arbitrariness that individuals as property owners and persons consciously enjoy? Are they mere vestiges of nature in (...) Hegel’s system, or do they constitute a simple yet valid form of freedom that is not only a part of Hegel’s rational system of right, but its necessary starting point? I will argue the latter: The arbitrary, purely egoist self-definition of property owners is the simplest possible type of freedom for Hegel, which he dissects in order to show how the very arbitrary self-definition implicitly relies on an identity between persons, and hence foreshadows the more social forms of freedom Hegel will discuss later in his book. I make this argument by highlighting Hegel’s references to his discussion of atoms and freedom in his Logic of Being. (shrink)