In Thinking like a Mall Steven Vogel argues that there is no authoritative nature independent of human standards to which one can appeal to correct damaging environmental practices. Human practices are the only basis for interpreting the environment and our ecologically destructive practices have made our environment into the degraded thing that it is. Revising these flawed practices requires becoming alienated from them; only then can we be responsible for them. Alienation is overcome by a democratic community who chooses the (...) practices that correct deficient ones and that we can recognise as expressions of ourselves and be at home in. This paper argues that there is a key step missing in this process, which is how we become alienated from our practices. It is only by appreciating the broader social and institutional horizon, ‘Ethical Life’, by which norms receive their authority and lose it, that we can understand alienation and the normative change necessary to correct it. (shrink)

While the idea of philosophy as conceptual analysis has attracted many adherents and undergone a number of variations, in general it suffers from an authority problem with two dimensions. First, it is unclear why the analysis of a concept should have objective authority: why explicating what we mean should express how things are. Second, conceptual analysis seems to lack intersubjective authority: why philosophical analysis should apply to more than a parochial group of individuals. I argue that Hegel’s conception of social (...) ontology, focused on his concept of “ethical life” (Sittlichkeit), helps to explain how concepts (and their explication) have both objective and intersubjective authority in the social domain. Hegel claims that modern institutions are the product of self-conscious purposes, so that they are conceptually constituted. Concepts do not just represent these objects and so depend on a contingent relation to them. As many contemporary social ontologists agree, this means that our concepts of these institutions are uniquely epistemically “transparent.” They have objective authority. Concepts have intersubjective authority in the modern world as well, according to Hegel. However, I show that this feature of Hegel’s account does not rely on the solution to a philosophical problem. Rather, since the concepts of modern ethical life are “essentially contested,” their content depends on the practical and political agreement of modern subjects. This means that concepts can only have objective authority if some prior intersubjective agreement has been reached. The role of philosophy as conceptual analysis is thus importantly dependent on political developments. (shrink)

This exploration of Hegel's critique of the individualistic ethos of modernity and the genesis of his alternative vision traces the conceptual schemes Hegel experimented with to show how he settled on the concepts of 'ethical life' (Sittlichkeit) and Spirit as the means for overcoming subjectivity and domination.

_An Ethical Modernity?_ offers a new view of Hegel’s doctrine of ethical life (_Sittlichkeit_) in relation to modernity. In this collection of essays, the authors investigate various aspects of this relation and its importance for today’s world.

It is often taken for granted that there is a crucial dichotomy between positive science, with its interest in what is the case, and morality, with its supposed interest in what ought to be the case. This assumption takes its departure from a belief in the notion of unconditional or categorical obligation or ?the moral? as ?that whose nature it is to be required or demanded?. The notion of unconditional or categorical obligation, together with the assumption that there is a (...) dichotomy between considerations of what is the case and what ought to be the case, however widespread and entrenched this notion and assumption might be, are logically confused. But to demonstrate this logical confusion is not the only task confronting ethical theory. Another, and often neglected task, is to draw attention to the ethical origins of this confusion in a particular way of life. Hegel's distinction between Moralität (Moral Life) and Sittlichkeit (Ethical Life) is of critical importance here. The obstacle to the development of ethical theory, then, is not some abstract ?logical confusion?, but is, rather, the way of life (Moral Life) of which this confusion is a natural expression. (shrink)

In order to develop his pragmatist and inferentialist framework, Robert Brandom appropriates, reconstructs and revises key themes in German Idealism such as the self-legislation of norms, the social institution of concepts and facts, a norm-oriented account of being and the critique of representationalist accounts of meaning and truth. However, these themes have an essential ethical dimension, one that Brandom has not explicitly acknowledged. For Hegel, the determination of norms and facts and the institution of normative statuses take place in the (...) context of Sittlichkeit (‘ethical life’). By engaging with some of the more ontologically and ethically substantive points raised by Hegel, I argue that, from a Hegelian perspective, Brandom’s project regarding the social determination of truth and meaning cannot be divorced from ethics, specifically, the ethical dimension of social recognition. Furthermore, I argue that, in real situations (as opposed to ideal ones), claims to normative authority cannot be considered independently from the legitimacy of those claims, a legitimacy that Brandom is unable to reasonably explain. Finally, I argue that a Hegelian solution to the problems facing Brandom’s framework calls into question the unity of reason that is at the core of Brandom’s normative pragmatics and inferential semantics. (shrink)

This paper presents a novel Hegelian view of the relationship between aesthetics and democratic politics. My account avoids the drawbacks associated with approaches that reconceive all of the political in aesthetic terms or reduce the aesthetic to art. Instead, I maintain that the aesthetic is best understood as a distinct relationship of individual freedom. My argument proceeds by highlighting shortcomings of Honneth’s account of democratic Sittlichkeit and then addressing these impasses by integrating aesthetic freedom into the picture. The first (...) two steps of my argument concern the fact that the form of life outlined by Honneth aspires to be a form of free life, yet his account of democratic Sittlichkeit gives rise to two dimensions of unfreedom. The first problem of unfreedom pertains to the scope of freedom. The relationships of freedom incorporated into Honneth’s account fail to turn given social roles into the subject matter of a sufficiently unrestricted practice of freedom. The second problem of freedom concerns conformism. In a final step, I complete my argument that Honneth’s account is unsatisfactory and incomplete by showing that aesthetic freedom is socially valid and thus ought to form part of our accounts of democratic ethical life. (shrink)

Sittlichkeit seduces: Hegel’s third category of Right, intended to synthesize impartially derived rights with a subjectively centered morality of the good, understandably piques the hopes of his modern readers. How could it not? Sittlichkeit, Ethical Life, holds out the prospect of so much that we still seek. It promises to reconcile welfare and autonomy while guaranteeing concrete content for their product. By combining legal duty with a place for conscience and freedom, it could solve a central problem (...) of politics. Most broadly, Sittlichkeit would graft Enlightenment individualism onto a more Aristotelian conception of social order, merging the benefits of ancient virtue and modern liberty. Who would not want to have their cake and eat it in this way? (shrink)

Sittlichkeit seduces: Hegel’s third category of Right, intended to synthesize impartially derived rights with a subjectively centered morality of the good, understandably piques the hopes of his modern readers. How could it not? Sittlichkeit, Ethical Life, holds out the prospect of so much that we still seek. It promises to reconcile welfare and autonomy while guaranteeing concrete content for their product. By combining legal duty with a place for conscience and freedom, it could solve a central problem (...) of politics. Most broadly, Sittlichkeit would graft Enlightenment individualism onto a more Aristotelian conception of social order, merging the benefits of ancient virtue and modern liberty. Who would not want to have their cake and eat it in this way? (shrink)

Despite a profound concern for the epistemological, ontological and ethical conditions for being-at-home-in-the-world, G.W.F. Hegel published very little on a particularly serious threat to being-at-home: mental illness and disorder. The chief exception is found in Hegel's Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830). In this work, Hegel briefly provides an ontology of madness (Verrücktheit), wherein madness consists in the inward collapsing of subjectivity and objectivity into the individual's unconscious and primordial feeling soul. While there has been an increasing number of studies (...) on Hegel's conception of madness, I propose that there is another overlooked way to understand madness in Hegel's system: as social pathology. I argue in this article that Hegel offers a compelling social account of madness in the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), which arises at the elevated, self-reflective and community level of spirit. This sociality of madness, as I call it, occurs when spirit is unable to reconcile two contradictory yet equally essential aspects of its reality, resulting in spirit's structural homelessness. I argue that by examining this overlooked sociality of madness, we may read Hegel's political-philosophical project in a new light: on the one hand, the ethical life (Sittlichkeit) presented in the Philosophy of Right (1821) becomes understood as a political therapeutic. On the other hand, if the ethical life fails to live up to the demand of being an adequate spiritual therapeutic, then the traditional reading of the Philosophy of Right as a reconciliatory hermeneutic becomes problematized, opening up new avenues for the proliferation of social pathology. (shrink)

이 글은 헤겔의 자연법 비판과 법철학 개요에서 전개된 철학적 법학 그리고 인륜적 국가의 기초를 살펴본다. 먼저 헤겔은 전통적인 자연법사상에서 자연 개념의 이의성(二義性), 자연 상태의 허구성, 자연법의 무비판적 도구화 가능성, 계약론적 사고의 폐해 등을 비판한다. 그리고 이에 대한 대안으로이성법으로 이해된 자연법 개념, 자유의지의 현존으로서의 법 개념 그리고 이 개념의 현실화를 전개하는 철학적 법학을 제시한다. 이 철학적 법학의 정점은 철학적으로 사유된 인륜적 국가라 할수 있다. 인륜적 국가는 자기의식의 본질로서의 자유의 현실, 더구나 모든 개별자들이 자신의 특수한 이해들을 자유롭게 충족시킬수 있는 구체적 자유의 현실이다. (...) 여기서 개인들은 항상 공동체적보편의 관점에서 저마다의 이익을 추구한다. 이렇게 한편으로는인륜적 성품으로, 다른 한편으로는 인륜적 제도들로 형성되는 헤겔의 인륜적 국가는 고대적 인륜성과 근대적 주체성이 매개된 자유의 실현 장소라 할 수 있다. (shrink)

Hume and contemporary Humeans contend that moral sentiments form the sole and sufficient basis of moral judgments. This thesis is criticised by appeal to Hume’s theory of justice, which shows that basic principles of justice are required to form and to maintain society, which is indispensable to human life, and that acting according to, or violating, these principles is right, or wrong, regardless of anyone’s sentiments, motives or character. Furthermore, Hume’s theory of justice shows how the principles of justice (...) are artificial without being arbitrary. In this regard, Hume’s theory belongs to the unjustly neglected modern natural law tradition. Some key merits of this strand in Hume’s theory are explicated by linking it to Kant’s constructivist method of identifying and justifying practical principles (à la O’Neill), and by showing how and why Hegel adopted and further developed Kant’s constructivism by re-integrating it with Hume’s central natural law concern with our actual social practices. (Slightly revised English translation by the author of „Von der Konvention zur Sittlichkeit. Humes Begründung einer Rechtsethik aus nach-Kantischer Perspektive“, on which see below.). (shrink)

Beginning from Hegel's notion of ethical life (Sittlichkeit) as a mode of consciousness governed by the norms of a historical community, this essay examines the role of education in shaping contemporary communities of autonomous people. It does so by defending a version of the idea that an educator has, among her other tasks, the role of helping her students appreciate the values that are shared across her community. In the course of the examination I relate this idea to (...) trends in the European Enlightenment, and I draw on research concerning political polarization in Europe and North America today and its impact on the academy. In the process I argue that the modern university educator has the task of cultivating in her students an attitude of critical inquiry whose results are not coerced by the social conditions under which that inquiry takes place, and I offer some pedagogical proposals for the university educator facing the situation we are today. (shrink)

Ever since Hegel made poignant the difference between morality and ethical life (“Sittlichkeit”), philosophical discourse in the traditions that developed subsequently, up to and including the Frankfurt school, has oscillated between those poles. This paper starts out with a short exposition of autonomy as one of the few large-scale innovations in the history of philosophy and then proceeds to discuss Hegel’s concept of “Sittlichkeit” and the objections to be raised against it from a Kantian point of view. (...) Political theory, however, has to move beyond pure normativism and consider actual social relations of power, as Marx disclosed. Mapping out this winding trajectory from Kant to Marx provides some perspective that may be illuminating for challenging present-day issues. (shrink)

Discussions of habit in Hegel’s thought usually focus on his subjective spirit since this is where the most extended discussion of this issue takes place. This paper argues that habit is also important for understanding Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. The discussion of habit and second nature occur at a critical juncture in the text. This discussion is important for understanding his notion of ethical life and his account of freedom.

The first translation into English and the first detailed interpretation of Hegel’s System der Sittlichkeit and of Philosophie des Geistes, the two earliest surviving versions of Hegel’s social theory. Hegel’s central concept of the spirit evolved in these two works. An 87-page interpretation by Harris precedes the translations.

This article deals with the question of what type of ethics may be efficient to cope with actual problems in advanced societies, i.e. environmental problems, social conflicts, the usage of new technologies. The answer given is that it is not morality or ethical decisions that count but the customary (das Übliche). But the customary is a rather precarious resource. This is not only because it may turn out to be the particularistic orientation of social groups, like those of companies, political (...) parties, or even peer groups but also because it is eaten up by the progress of modernity. This is shown by comparison with the historical forerunner of the customary, namely what has been called ethical life (substantielle Sittlichkeit) by Hegel. (shrink)

This article endeavors to draw out and explicate some of the normative tensions that animate the imaginary and practice of solidarity. It begins by examining the account of solidarity set forth in the writings of Jürgen Habermas. It then considers Axel Honneth’s recognition-theoretic conception of the solidaristic attitude. While remaining sympathetic to the left-Hegelian intersubjectivism of Habermas’ discourse-ethic, Honneth seeks to redress the “cognitive-centric” limitations of the latter thinker’s conception of solidarity. In this context, particular emphasis is placed on (...) Honneth’s engagement with the idea of Sittlichkeit, or shared form of ethical life, discussed in Hegel’s early “Jena period” work, as well as in his later Elements of the Philosophy of Right. To Honneth, while these writings can contribute significantly to a recognition-theoretic understanding of solidarity, they must be distinguished from the philosophy of consciousness that circumscribes the famous recognition struggle between master and slave in The Phenomenology of Spirit. In conclusion, the paper questions the capacity of Honneth’s approach to criticize ideological forms of solidaristic recognition, offering a qualified defense of Habermas’ contravening perspective. (shrink)

No contemporary attempt to develop a theory of morality in the Kantian tradition would be responsible if it ignored the Hegelian critique of Kantian ethics. At the center of that critique is the claim that the principles and maxims of pure practical reason are insufficiently specific to give definite answers to basic moral questions arising in everyday life. Pure practical reason is here understood as the exercise of that rational capacity which I share with all rational creatures in all (...) times and places. It thus abstracts from all aspects of my moral sensibility which derive from my own historical time and place in distinction from other cultures or societies. (shrink)

The first translation into English and the first detailed interpretation of Hegel’s System der Sittlichkeit and of Philosophie des Geistes, the two earliest surviving versions of Hegel’s social theory. Hegel’s central concept of the spirit evolved in these two works. An 87-page interpretation by Harris precedes the translations.

This paper examines Hegel’s idea of nation and its significance for his theory of the modern state, namely, the role that ‘the national’ plays for his justification of right in the Philosophy of Right. It is argued that Hegel strikes a balance between historicism and a rational justification of state and law. He bases the state on a notion of Sittlichkeit (ethical life) that is both national and subjected to a world historical development toward rationality and universal right. (...) Consequently, ‘nation,’ in the sense of a group of people invoking identity and rights based on a primordial common language, culture, and territory, does not cover what Hegel means by the modern nation state. ‘Ethical life’ is national, but it also constitutes a historically changeable community of values supported by citizens’ conscious participation in communal life (patriotism). Today, Hegel’s idea undermines the legitimacy of nationalistic invocations of primordial ethnic cultures within politics. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Religion: A Moral‐Metaphysical Interpretation of ‘Positivity’ Love: Outline of an Ethical Relation Law: Death and Absolute Sittlichkeit References Secondary Sources.

Ever since Hegel made poignant the difference between morality and ethical life, philosophical discourse in the traditions that developed subsequently, up to and including the Frankfurt school, has oscillated between those poles. This paper starts out with a short exposition of autonomy as one of the few large-scale innovations in the history of philosophy and then proceeds to discuss Hegel’s concept of “Sittlichkeit” and the objections to be raised against it from a Kantian point of view. Political theory, (...) however, has to move beyond pure normativism and consider actual social relations of power, as Marx disclosed. Mapping out this winding trajectory from Kant to Marx provides some perspective that may be illuminating for challenging present-day issues. (shrink)

This article tries to discuss the potential dangers of proposing a world order in the form of the morally based idea of perpetual peace as it is developed by Kant and further propagated by Habermas and Derrida. Drawing on a distinction between the Kantian idea of morality (Moralität) attributed to the internality of man via its theological connection with god and an idea of ethics akin to Aristotelian and/or Hegelian notions (ethos or ethical life – Sittlichkeit), the article (...) posits the question of the role of morality in the formation of the idea of perpetual peace. While doing this, it will also discuss some of the dangers of imposing a moral law under the pretext of moral necessity onto a humanity who may not will to adhere to the same principles. Thus, even though it does not discuss human rights directly, all the argument revolves around the question of the status of universal human rights as the law of the cosmopoli- tan world and the institutions imposing that law on today’s nations. (shrink)

Georg Lukács wrote that "there is autonomy and 'autonomy.' The one is a moment of life itself, the elevation of its richness and contradictory unity; the other is a rigidification, a barren self-seclusion, a self-imposed banishment from the dynamic overall connection." Though Lukács' concern was with the conditions for the possibility of art, his distinction also serves as an apt description of the way that Hegel and Hegelians have contrasted their own interpretations of self-determination with that of Kant. But (...) it has always been difficult to see how elevation is possible without seclusion, or how rigidification can be avoided without making the boundaries of the self so malleable that its autonomy looks like a mere cover for the power of external forces. Yeomans explores Hegel's own attempts to grapple with this problem against the background of Kant's attempts, in his theory of virtue, to understand the way that morally autonomous agents can be robust individuals with qualitatively different projects, personal relations, and commitments that are nonetheless infused with a value that demands respect. In a reading that disentangles a number of different threads in Kant's approach, Yeomans shows how Hegel reweaves these threads around the central notions of talent and interest to produce a tapestry of self-determination. Yeomans argues that the result is a striking pluralism that identifies three qualitatively distinct forms of agency or accountability and sees each of these forms of agency as being embodied in different social groups in different ways. But there is nonetheless a dynamic unity to the forms because they can all be understood as practical attempts to solve the problem of autonomy, and each is thus worthy of respect even from the perspective of other solutions."Everyone recognizes the importance of Hegel's critique of Kantian morality as empty, but until now there has not been a fully worked out presentation of how Hegel's views in his discussion of Sittlichkeit actually provide the missing content. Yeomans has finally provided us with a reconstruction of Hegel's mature position that makes good on all the promissory notes that Hegel gives in his famous descriptions of his alternative to Kantian ethics. Yeomans offers a compelling account of Hegel's view of individuality, societal differentiation and its roots in Kantian and Fichtean moral theory. The book will be a major contribution to the scholarship on Hegel's practical philosophy." - Dean Moyar, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University -/- "Yeomans' book is a subtle, detailed and original explication of some key ideas having to do with how Hegel's general philosophy of action relates to his social and political philosophy. It is attentive to Hegel's texts, and it ties its discussions into all the relevant contemporary themes in philosophy. It is very ambitious in its attempt to make Hegel's theory into a real competitor to other views that are currently in wide play in the philosophical world. It will very likely become one of the key texts in the secondary literature on Hegel." - Terry Pinkard, University Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University. (shrink)

We shall see that as the Master of suspicion, Marx rejects capitalism, which he considers to be a system of bourgeois oppression, absurd and decadent. The latter eludes the importance of the social question in the historical future of a society. Trampling on the lyrical illusions of practical rationality, he insists on the rigidity of economic and social determinisms, to which he confers an overdeterminent role in sub-estimating the impact of cognitive and/or psychological mechanisms on the exercise of state power. (...) We will explain how dialectical materialism in Marx joins in many respects the methodological revolution initiated by Nietzsche, particularly as regards its requirement to contextualize a real understood as a fabric of forces, in order to understand the origin of the dominant values and that of the capitalist system. Moreover, it will be important to develop the idea that within a civil society, itself prey to a crisis of the sittlichkeit (the ethical life), history tends to separate the interests in favor of imperceptible cowards perverse become legion, while insidiously affecting a social body incapable of escaping from material contingencies. We will then have the right to question the way in which revolutions occur? (shrink)

Hegel argues in the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion that the notion that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) well expresses the self-developing infinitude of being. As such, love expresses the unity of difference and is, therefore, the “representation” (Vorstellung) of reason (Vernunft). This requires, however, transcending the abstract notion of the perfect God that stands over and above finite reality. At the same time love has a subjective dimension, embodied not only in mutual recognition but in the experience (...) of the highest forms of unity with otherness. This ultimately requires of the individual that he or she embrace the nothingness of his or her being and yet also engage responsibly in ethical life (Sittlichkeit). (shrink)

This article responds to Nicholas Adams by exploring the affinities between his account and Hegel, with a particular focus on the dialectic of articulation. They seem to agree on the undermining effect of articulation and reflection on implicit commitments. However, Adams diverges from Hegel by questioning the consequence and supposed inevitability of this dialectical process. Whereas Hegel argues for the desirability of conscious articulation in the progress towards modernity, Adams contends that it is actually a destructive and oppressive process, challenging (...) Hegel’s Enlightenment optimism and Eurocentrism. Still, I suggest that Hegel’s concern for rational dialogue as an indispensable condition for modern life and community should be taken seriously. Scriptural reasoning, as discussed by Adams, provides a model how we can have a form of rational dialogue that escapes from the dilemma posed by the Hegelian dialectic, and that it may be possible to combine strong ethical commitments with an openness to pluralistic dialogue. (shrink)

In the essays collected here, Apel addresses some of the points of the discourse ethics controversy by responding to critics and developing his original formulation in different directions: a) the distinction between two stages of discourse ethics, relating respectively to the ideal community of communication and the real community; in the second stage, while maintaining the principle of equal dignity of communication partners as a regulatory idea, deontological ethics should be integrated with an ethics of responsibility; b) placing a deontological (...) ethics as a post-conventional ethics within an evolutionary reconstruction of individual development and the history of humankind in the light of Gehlen's anthropology and Kohlberg's psychological theory of moral development; c) a recognition of a certain validity in the neo-Hegelian claim of the ineliminable role of morality or Sittlichkeit in the face of all universalistic ethics, accompanied, however, by the characterization of ethics as a compromise between universalistic instances and concrete cultural and institutional data, without any concession, yet, to the thesis of incommensurability between different forms of life. (shrink)

The problem of poverty and the emergence of a rabble (Pöbel) in modern society does not find any reasonable solution in Hegel's Philosophy of Right (henceforth PR). Some scholars have stressed how unusual this is for Hegel, claiming that it would have been uncharacteristic for him to leave a major, acknowledged problem of his system unsolved: "On no other occasion does Hegel leave a problem at that." The importance of this problem is not limited to the threat it poses to (...) the sphere of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). It also pertains to some central issues in Hegel's philosophy of history and the role he assigns to philosophy and philosophers in the making of history. In the present paper, I have three objectives. First, I will point out some bold, radical claims in Hegel’s discussion of poverty and examine the way he restrains them. Second, in contrast to the common view which holds that Marx ignores Hegel’s discussion of poverty in the PR, I will point to one of Marx’s early works which clearly refers to this discussion and in fact makes an intriguing use of Hegel’s claims by uncovering their radical elements and setting them free. Finally, I will argue that the deep reason for Hegel’s avoidance of social radicalism lies in his philosophy of history. The last point will also serve to explain Hegel’s willingness to leave the problem of poverty unsolved. I will begin however, with a short summary of Hegel’s discussion of poverty. (shrink)

It is claimed that Hegel denies the possibility of a modern epic and that his lectures on aesthetics demand the condemnation of all the art of his own time. I use the available student transcripts of his lectures on aesthetics, in conjunction with Lukács's views on the novel, to show that Hegel suggests that the novel might count as a modern epic and that it may perform a significant function in modern ethical life (Sittlichkeit) as presented in his (...) own philosophy of right. While Hegel raises questions concerning the possibility of a modern epic, he also presents the novel with a task that Lukács's interpretation of Balzac's Illusions perdues shows the novel is able to fulfill. This becomes evident when we consider Hegel's remarks on the novel in connection with his theory of civil society. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that Hegel's complete and mature view of crime and punishment is more robust than many interpretations of the Unrecht passage in the ‘Abstract Right’ section of Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right suggest. First, I explain the value of revisiting the interpretation of Hegel as a simple retributionist in the contemporary debate. Then, I look at Hegel's treatment of crime and punishment in the section on abstract right to show the role of punishment in (...) Hegel's account. Next, I argue that this needs to be situated in Hegel's broader social philosophy and that we can accomplish this by looking at how the Unrecht passage fits in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right’s dialectical structure. I do so by building on the sections on civil society and state in the part of Elements of the Philosophy of Right dealing with ethical life (Sittlichkeit), which include considerations of prevention and rehabilitation. I contend that this analysis reveals an account of punishment as more complicated than simple retribution. (shrink)

In this article I argue that Jürgen Habermas’ notion of morality (moral norms) has more in common with Hegel’s notion of ‘ethical life’ as a ‘ sittlich ’ relation – understood as a socially integrative force – rather than Kant’s supreme principle of personal morality. I show that Habermas and Hegel, each in his own way, make a distinction between morality and ethics. However, I make the case that Habermas’ conception of ‘morality’ incorporates aspects of Hegel’s notion of ‘ethical (...) life’, while Habermas’ conception of ‘ethical’ – referring to individual and group conceptions of the good life – is a remedy to the shortcomings in Hegel’s overly unified ethical life. I offer an alternative reading of Habermas’ principle of morality, which I suggest should be read as his attempt to provide a binding process to set up the norms that ought to condition a modern political community understood as a civil association. (shrink)

The article seeks to understand Hannah Arendt's political thinking by relating it to an issue which is crucial to the thinking of the later Heidegger, i.e., the problem of originality ( Anfänglichkeit) and history. In opposition to Hegel's thesis of the “end of art,” Heidegger envisages in “great art” such as Hölderlin's poetry a new origin of thinking and history. The end of art, which Hegel holds to be necessary, is in Heidegger's view to be overcome precisely because art, for (...) him, entails an origin which is not a “Not yet” of a teleological perfection in Hegel's sense, but a “Not yet” of a future history. However, Heidegger's orientation towards a “pure” origin qua future leads him to poietically escape the realm of the Political and the questions of praxis and practical rationality.Like Heidegger, Arendt is taken with the problem of origin; but in contrast to her former teacher, she tries to regain what Heidegger thought he could leave, viz., the dimension of the genuine Political and of acting. The original sense of acting (for Arendt, the capability of human beings to make a new beginning) can be observed in the Greek polis as well as in the American Revolution in modern times: The revolutionary act of a total new beginning elucidates, according to Arendt, what “acting” means in the full and truly political sense. However, Arendt's notion of an epochal beginning seems one-sided, and her abstract concept of acting seems to foster a mere actionism and anarchy. Therefore, contrary to Arendt's claims, the concept of the Political which she shapes in accordance with the extraordinary experiences of an epochal acting has apolitical consequences. The task of thinking after Heidegger and Arendt thus remains one of determining the political character of action in a convincing manner. In this respect, the paper pleads for a rethinking of Hegel's concept of ethical life ( Sittlichkeit). (shrink)

This book presents a reconstruction of the trajectories of freedom in Axel Honneth's recognition theory in the context of the conflict between autonomy and social cohesion. Honneth's re-appropriation of Hegel's notion of Sittlichkeit, or "ethical life," provides a potent descriptive theoretical perspective of social conflicts and an articulated praxis of Hegel's social theory. Amidst the current critical literature posed against the normative aspect of Honneth's critical theory, there is an already implicit solution to the problem of normativity and (...) reification. By articulating the conflict between freedom and normativity as both a pathological problem and a progressive movement in critical theory, the theme of solidarity is further reinforced in the development of Honneth's social philosophy. Through the consolidation of the process of recognition, and the spheres of social interaction where individuals develop, reinforce, and build their identities, it is possible to develop a reverse analysis of a complementary system of social interactions between personal relations, market economy, and democratic spheres to identify deficiencies in societal needs. The book proposes the Reconstructive Normative Simulation (RNS) to consolidate Honneth's social philosophy. Through RNS, it is possible to examine social pathologies by locating deficiencies in normative resources in the three social spheres. By articulating these deficiencies, the possibility of adjusting societal norms becomes historically bound to existing norms, while at the same time receptive to forthcoming identities. (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)

This paper reconstructs what the famous sentence "what is rational is actual /and what is actual is rational" specifically means within the Hegel's Philosophy of Right. The two traditional and antithetical interpretations of these words share one main point: both transpose them on the level of the Philosophy of History. Haym does this from a conservative perspective. He regards the Hegelian saying as an immediate justification for existence. Gans and, more recently, Ilting do this from a liberal perspective. They find (...) the idea of the progressive realization of rationality in history in the Hegelian saying. The latter interpretation seems to be attested in some alternative formulations provided by Hegel in his lectures (where "real" and "actual" are linked by "wird" or "muß sein", not by "ist"). Hegel's words, however, do not directly refer to the Philosophy of History. They concern in the first place the structure of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). This is confirmed by the recurring reference to the category of “idea”. Ethical life is the process through which ethical substance – i.e. the ensemble of the substantial determinations that structure everyone’s life – is realized through the self-conscious action of individuals. This action is the objectifying of the spirit and is always a finite action. Through this very manifold contingency, the "brightly coloured covering" of men's being busy, the substance emerges as the "universal way of their acting". This process turns into a whole series of specific differences that structure several spheres of action and existence, whose compresence must be governed. As it is always open to error and not logically deducible, this process turns the identity of rational and actual, in the Philosophy of Right, into an ethical-political problem. (shrink)

For Hegel, personhood is developed primarily through the possession, ownership, and exchange of property. Property is crucial for individuals to experience freedom as persons and for the existence of Sittlichkeit, or ethical life within a community. The free exchange of property serves to develop individual personalities by mediating our intersubjectivity between one another, whereby we share another’s subjective experience of the object by recognizing their will in it and respecting their ownership of it. This free exchange is grounded (...) the abstract right to property which is defined by the liberal institution of private property. Like all legal/juridical rights, the abstract property right and its related institution are productions of the state, which can also claim priority over them. This prioritization reveals the dialectic inherent in the both the conception and exercise of the right, in which the private right to property at the level of civil society confronts the public right of the state, resulting in both the preservation and uplifting of the right, and, at the same time, its cancellation or annihilation. (shrink)

This paper attempts in a preliminary way to bring out the ‘pragmatics’ or ‘performativity’ in Hegel’s conception of tragedy and the tragic in the Phenomenology of Spirit. The secondary literature has tended to focus on ethical content (the tragic) at the expense of cultic form and dramaturgical enactment (tragedy); and even with the tragic it has tended to overlook the different linguistic levels in use. I argue that the peculiar term ‘Individualität’ allows Hegel, in chapter VI, to describe a logic (...) of equivocal representation he sees at work in ancient ‘Sittlichkeit’ (ethical life). I argue furthermore that we seriously misrepresent Hegel’s conception of tragedy if we do not include the astonishing claims made of ‘Art-religion’ in chapter VII. Here tragedy takes on a meta-aesthetic color. Hegel sees tragedy as more than an ancient phenomenon, but as a recurring feature in attempts to represent (vorstellen) a speculative truth in sensuous form. (shrink)

This essay explains the role of history and ethical life (Sittlichkeit) in the first section of the chapter entitled “Spirit” in the Phenomenology of Spirit, in which Hegel interprets the meaning of Sophocles’' Antigone as the best expression of the ancient Greeks’ ethical life in its preliminary and most immediate state. It is argued, first, that Hegel’s understanding of the ethical life was developed as an alternative, based on history, to Kant’s notion of morals (Sitten) and, (...) second, that Hegel considered the ancient Greek mode of living limited by its immediacy and, therefore, never hoped to revive it during his own time. (shrink)

Mark Alznauers Studie bietet eine ebenso konzise wie originelle Deutung von Hegels praktischer Philosophie. Sie erreicht dies, indem sie Hegels praktische Philosophie unter die überraschende Überschrift einer Theorie der „Verantwortung“ oder „Schuld“ („Theory of Responsibility“) stellt. Das ist zunächst überraschend, da weder Verantwortung noch Schuld zu den tragenden Grundbegriffen der Hegelschen Darstellung zu zählen scheinen. Alznauer will in seiner Studie aber zeigen, dass wir Hegels Behandlung seiner zentralen praktischen Begriffe – wie Wille, Person, Recht, Moralität, Sittlichkeit – nur dann (...) angemessen verstehen können, wenn wir sie im Ausgang vom Problem der Verantwortlichkeit verstehen: Hegel lasse sich in seiner praktischen Philosophie von der Frage leiten, was alles erforderlich ist, damit wir zu Wesen werden können, die für ihr Tun Verantwortung tragen. Die verschiedenen normativen Ordnungen, die Hegel herausarbeitet – das abstrakte Recht, die Moralität, die Sittlichkeit und schließlich die Weltgeschichte – ermöglichen uns auf jeweils unterschiedliche Weise, uns „schuldig“ zu machen: Handelnde zu werden, die durch ihr Tun geistig wirken und für das Getane einstehen können. Verantwortlichkeit ist nach dieser Deutung das große Desiderat der praktischen Philosophie Hegels: „Der Mensch soll schuldig sein, insofern er gut ist, soll er nicht sein, wie ein natürliches Ding gut ist, sondern es soll seine Schuld [...] sein“ (Hegel 1986b, S. 253). Damit dies möglich wird, ist deutlich mehr erforderlich, als es zunächst scheint: Wir müssen geistige Vermögen ausbilden, durch die wir unser Tun als Ausdruck unserer Gründe erfahren können; wir müssen in einer Welt leben, die uns ein Selbstverständnis als freie Wesen ermöglicht; und wir müssen schließlich – dies ist wohl das Überraschendste der von Alznauer reklamierten Erfordernisse – als ein anerkanntes Mitglied eines Staates leben (21). Dass der Mensch Schuld haben kann, ist in diesem Sinne kein triviales Vermögen, sondern „das Siegel der absoluten hohen Bestimmung des Menschen.“ (Hegel 1986a, S. 50). (shrink)

The tension between liberalism and democracy is very likely to become one of the major confliction fields of the early twenty-first century. Those conflicts include the redefinition of the relationship between ethics, morality, and law—in all the three spheres of modernity: the intimate, the private and the public. It turns out that all three aspects of the relationship once described by Hegel (law, morality and Sittlichkeit) remain equally decisive to maintain or regain the balance of freedoms in the modern (...) world. There is no justice, nor is there equity—unless this balance is maintained. Law—in this context—is not just the defender of the “universal” aspect, but preferably also that of the balance of freedoms (both through interfering, and through the denial of interference in “ethical life”). (shrink)

By focusing on Sittlichkeit, or ethical life, in Hegels mature period, Alan Patten offers an extensive interpretation of Hegelian freedom as self-actualization rather than as the limited fulfillment of social and political roles. Patten admits that there are obvious difficulties in seeing freedom at work in the Sittlichkeit thesis. For instance, Hegel attributes the individuals morality to the duties imposed on him by his social station. Increasing the difficulty in Pattens case for individual freedom, Hegel argues at (...) length in the Philosophy of Right that the ethical norms that guide practical reason consist in the duties and virtues of ethical life of three central institutions: the family, civil society, and the state. (shrink)

Søren Kierkegaard's thesis, "The Concept of Irony", contains an interesting critique of pure irony. Kierkegaard's critique turns on two main claims: (a) pure irony is an incoherent and thus, unrealizable stance; (b) the pursuit of pure irony is morally enervating, psychologically destructive, and culminates in bondage to moods. In this essay, first I attempt to clarify Kierkegaard's understanding of pure irony as "infinite absolute negativity." Then I set forth his multilayered critique of pure irony. Finally, I consider briefly a distinctly (...) theological component in Kierkegaard's critique. I argue that this feature of Kierkegaard's account can and should be distinguished from the broadly ethical critique of pure irony that I sketch in the second section, even if these components of Kierkegaard's position are found together as a unified whole in "The Concept of Irony". My overall goal in this essay is to reveal the subtlety and plausibility of Kierkegaard's critique of pure irony. I also attempt to disclose the richness of the Hegelian account of ethical life to which Kierkegaard recurs in his thesis. (shrink)

The article seeks to understand Hannah Arendt's political thinking by relating it to an issue which is crucial to the thinking of the later Heidegger, i.e., the problem of originality ( Anfänglichkeit) and history. In opposition to Hegel's thesis of the “end of art,” Heidegger envisages in “great art” such as Hölderlin's poetry a new origin of thinking and history. The end of art, which Hegel holds to be necessary, is in Heidegger's view to be overcome precisely because art, for (...) him, entails an origin which is not a “Not yet” of a teleological perfection in Hegel's sense, but a “Not yet” of a future history. However, Heidegger's orientation towards a “pure” origin qua future leads him to poietically escape the realm of the Political and the questions of praxis and practical rationality.Like Heidegger, Arendt is taken with the problem of origin; but in contrast to her former teacher, she tries to regain what Heidegger thought he could leave, viz., the dimension of the genuine Political and of acting. The original sense of acting (for Arendt, the capability of human beings to make a new beginning) can be observed in the Greek polis as well as in the American Revolution in modern times: The revolutionary act of a total new beginning elucidates, according to Arendt, what “acting” means in the full and truly political sense. However, Arendt's notion of an epochal beginning seems one-sided, and her abstract concept of acting seems to foster a mere actionism and anarchy. Therefore, contrary to Arendt's claims, the concept of the Political which she shapes in accordance with the extraordinary experiences of an epochal acting has apolitical consequences. The task of thinking after Heidegger and Arendt thus remains one of determining the political character of action in a convincing manner. In this respect, the paper pleads for a rethinking of Hegel's concept of ethical life ( Sittlichkeit). (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that Hegel’s model of ethical life is normatively gripping for Du Bois’s critique of Radical Reconstruction. My argument proceeds in three steps. First, I use Du Bois’s insights to explain the nature of progressive political change in historical time, an account Hegel lacks. I reconstruct the normative basis of Du Bois's political critique by articulating the three essential features of public reasoning qua citizenship. Second, I defend the promise of black civic enfranchisement with respect (...) to the institutional conditions of love and labour in the wake of the Civil War. Third, I establish the central role black freedmen played in realizing the ideals of democratic self-governance affirmed in principle but seldom realized in practice in the United States. (shrink)

To understand Hegel’s concept of Sittlichkeit (ethical life) and the role that love and marriage play in it, we must understand his concept of recognition. It is a mistake, however, to think as some do that mutual recognition between equals is sufficient for Sittlichkeit. Rather, for Hegel, the more significant and powerful the recognizer, the more real the recognized. Ultimately recognition must come from spirit (Geist). Understanding this will allow us to see, despite Hegel, that he can (...) capture, better than other theorists, many of the central concerns of contemporary same-sex marriage proponents and help provide them a philosophical underpinning. (shrink)

The paper aims to clarify the interpretation of Kantian morality and Hegelian ethical life given by Honneth and Habermas; it try in particularly to explain the several meanings and forms of Honneth’s relaunch of Hegel’s conception of Sitt- lichkeit. The Author aims at the same time to show some structural limits of this neo-Hegelian ethical perspective from a political point of view, also in relation to the concept of «immanent critique» adopted by Honneth, and differentiated by him from the (...) concept of «internal criticism» developed by Michael Walzer. The Author observes that the immanent approach of Honneth’s normative reconstruction and social critique seems to have some problems to take in account the plurality of different and con icting ethical-political orientations. (shrink)

Liberdade e eticidade: o diagnóstico crítico da modernidade política em Hegel Resumo: Após uma sucinta caracterização do processo de diferenciação e separação histórico-conceitual entre sociedade civil e Estado, respectivamente, entre o indivíduo burguês e o cidadão como traço principal da modernidade política, empreende-se uma análise concisa dos três registros da “apresentação” do conceito de liberdade, que, no âmbito do espírito objetivo, culmina no desenvolvimento do conceito de eticidade. Em seguida, explicita-se os três momentos lógicos, isto é, os três elementos constitutivos (...) e processuais do conceito de liberdade, que, em sua efetivação no âmbito do espírito subjetivo, assume três figuras, a da vontade natural, a da vontade do arbítrio e a da vontade livre que quer a efetivação universal da liberdade como seu “conteúdo, objeto e fim”. Hegel é por excelência o filósofo da modernidade política e, ao mesmo tempo, o seu crítico, na medida em que aprofunda a ruptura com a fundamentação teológica e jusnaturalista que o contratualismo moderno introduz no pensamento ético-político ao fundar a família, a sociedade e o poder político na vontade livre autônoma, ao mesmo tempo em que critica o caráter atomista e negativo da liberdade individual que o paradigma contratualista põe como sua base. Por fim, examina-se mais detidamente os dois pilares fundamentais que fundam a estrutura normativa de uma eticidade moderna e reflexiva : a pessoa como sujeito de direitos e a liberdade subjetiva da consciência moral moderna. Palavras-chave: Liberdade. Modernidade política. Diferença entre sociedade e Estado. Eticidade. Pessoa. Consciência moral. Freiheit und Sittlichkeit: die kritische Diagnose der politischen Modernität bei Hegel Zusammenfassung: Nach einer kurzen Darlegung des historisch-begrifflichen Differenzierungs- und Trennungsprozesses von burgerlicher Gesellschaft und Staat, beziehunsweise, zwischen dem „bourgeois“ und dem staatlichen Bürger, als den auszeichnenden Hauptzug der politischen Modernität, wird eine gedrängte Analyse der drei Ebenen der Darstellung des Freiheitsbegriffs, dessen Verwirklichung im Bereich des objektiven Geistes in der Entwicklung des Sittlichkeitbegriffs seinen Höhepunkt hat. Danach werden die drei logischen Momente, das heisst, die drei prozessualen Bestantandsteile des abstrakten Freiheitsbegriffs ausgelegt, die in ihrer Verwirklichung im subjektiven Geist die entresprechenden drei Gestalten des natürlichen Willens, des Willens als Willkür und desjenigen freien Willens, der die allgemeine Verwirklichung der Freiheit als „Inhalt, Gegenstand und Zweck“ hat. Hegel erweist sich als der profilierte und zugleich kritische Philosoph der politischen Modernität, insofern er den vom Kontraktualismus eingeführten Bruch mit der theologischen und naturrechtlichen Fundierung der Familie, der Gesellschat und der politischen Macht weiter vertieft und zugleich die negative und atomistische Dimension der individuellen Freiheit kritisiert, die der Kontraktualismus zu seiner Voraussetzung hat. Endlich, werden die zwei Grundpfeiler auseinandergelegt, welche die normative Struktur einer reflexiven und modernen Sittlichkeit begründen : die Person als Rechtssubjekt und die subjektive Freiheit als moralisches Gewissen. Schlüsselbegriffe: Freiheit. Politische Modernität. Differenz zwischen bürgerlicher Gesellschat und Staat. Sittlichkeit. Person. Gewissen. Freedom and ethical life: Hegel’s critical diagnosis of political modernity: Departing from a brief characterization of the historical-conceptual process by which civil society and the state, respectively, the bourgeois and the citizen, differed and separated from one another – a fundamental trait of political modernity –, I have undertaken a concise analysis of the three moments of the exposition of freedom’s concept, which, within the scope of objective spirit, culminates in the development of the concept of ethical life. Thereupon, I have elucidated the three logical moments, that is, the three constitutive and procedural elements of freedom’s concept, namely, universality, particularity and singularity, which, in their effectivation within the scope of subjective spirit, assume three figures: that of natural will, arbitrary will and the free will which wants the universal effectivation of freedom as its “content, object and aim”. Hegel is thus the philosopher of political modernity par excellence and, simultaneously, its severe critic, inasmuch as he, on the one hand, deepens the rift which modern contractualism introduced in ethical-political thought when it founded family, society and political power upon autonomous free will, and on the other, inasmuch as he, at the same time, tears down the atomist and negative character of individual freedom set forth by the contractualist paradigm as its basis. Finally, I examined in detail the two fundamental columns upon which a normative structure of a modern and reflexive ethical life are based: the person as subject of rights and the modern moral consciousness’ as subjective freedom. Keywords: Freedom. Political modernity. Difference between society and state. Ethical life. Person. Moral consciousness. Data de registro: 30/07/2020 Data de aceite: 21/10/2020. (shrink)