Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:23:09.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Naturalism in Ethics and Hegel's Distinction between Subjective and Objective Spirit1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Dean Moyar
Dean Moyar*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that Hegel's ethical thought moves in a naturalistic direction away from the pure practical reason of Kant's moral philosophy. But the exact character of that naturalistic turn has proven elusive, in part because Hegel so insistently foregrounds the theme of freedom. He often opposes self-determination through freedom to being determined merely by nature, and while Hegel's incorporation of the natural into his theory of freedom has been emphasised by many recent commentators, there remains a fundamental lack of consensus about how nature and freedom intersect in Hegel's ethics. My goal is to shed light on this issue by examining Hegel's distinction between Subjective Spirit and Objective Spirit. This distinction between two domains of inquiry and two perspectives on human action is fundamental for understanding his views about the natural and the normative in ethics. My central claim is that by advocating a division of labor between these domains, and by showing how they are integrated, Hegel is able to capture the best elements of naturalistic inquiry into human psychology and to preserve the distinctive character of the ethical domain.

This paper aims to open an avenue for future research into Hegel's naturalism and to demonstrate Hegel's relevance for contemporary debates. In focusing on the difference between Subjective Spirit and Objective Spirit, I am already taking on a large topic for a single essay, and there are many related issues in Hegel that will necessarily go untouched. Some of these are worth mentioning up front. First, one would expect a paper about Hegel's naturalism to explore Hegel's view on nature in general, namely, the content of the Philosophy of Nature which forms the middle part of the Encyclopaedia. Without an account of how Hegel conceives of nature, it seems that we have to assume a conception of nature foreign to his system, and using that to measure his views would seem to violate a number of hermeneutical strictures. While I admit that this is a problem, it is simply beyond the scope of this paper, and I hope that using an intuitive account of the natural, and Hegel's claims about human nature, is enough at least to get this project going. The project itself can then provide a further spur to examining Hegel's views on non-human nature.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring/Summer 2010 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Abbreviations of Hegel's works:

PM: Hegel (1971)

PS: Hegel (1977)

PSS: Hegel (1978)

PR: Hegel (1991)

I would like to thank the audience of the 2008 conference of the Hegel Society of Great Britain for helpful feedback on this essay.

References

Dudley, W. (2002), Hegel, Nietzsche and Philosophy: Thinking Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichte, J. G. (1971), Sämmtliche Werke, ed. Fichte, Immanuel Hermann. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fichte, J. G. (1994), Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre and Other Writings, ed. Breazeale, Daniel. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. (1971), “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’, The journal of Philosophy, vol. 68: 5–20.10.2307/2024717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, S. (2007), “The Limits of Naturalism and the Metaphysics of German Idealism’ in Hammer, Espen (ed.), German Idealism: Contemporary Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, G. (2009), ‘Religion, History, and Spirit in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit ’ in Westphal, Kenneth (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2006), The Happiness Hypothesis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1971), Hegel's Philosophy of Mind, trans. Wallace, W.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977), Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. Miller, A. V.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1978), Hegels Philosophie des subjektiven Geistes/Hegel's Philosophy of Subjective Spirit, ed. and trans. Petry, M., 3 vols. Dordrecht: Riedel.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1983), Philosophie des Rechts: Die Vorlesung von 1819/20 in einer Nachschrift, ed. Henrich, Dieter. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1991), Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. Nisbet, H. B, ed. Wood, Allen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honneth, A. (2008), ‘From Desire to Recognition’ in Moyar, Dean & Quante, Michael (eds.), Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C., et al. (1996), The Source of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, R. (2008), Hegel's Practical Philosophy: Rational Agency as Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, J. (2008), The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quante, M. (1997), “Personal Autonomy and the Structure of the Will’ in Kothavirta, Jussi (ed.), Right, Morality, Ethical Life: Studies in G. W. F. Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. 45–74.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (1990), Hegel's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar