Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T00:35:05.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pecca Fortiter for the Sake of Morality? Making Sense of Wrong in Hegel’s System of Right*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

Alexander T. Englert
Alexander T. Englert*
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to clarify the role ‘wrong’ plays in Hegel’s system of right, as both a form of freedom and the transition to morality. Two approaches will be examined to explore wrong in practical philosophical terms: First, one could take the transition to be descriptive in nature. The transition describes wrong as a realized fact of the human condition that one inherits from the outset. Second, one could see it as prescriptive. Actual wrongdoing would be essential for the subject’s progression to becoming moral. Though both are most likely the case, emphasis is given to the latter since it represents the actualization of potential. Furthermore, it will be suggested that wrong plays a similar role as that which alienation does in the Phenomenology of Spirit; both bridge the will as abstract personality with the moral point of view.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 35 , Issue 2: Moral Philosophy , October 2014 , pp. 204 - 227
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2014 

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

*

I would like to express my gratitude, first, to Dean Moyar who commented on earlier drafts and challenged me to make my ideas clearer. Second, I wish to thank Eckart Förster whose guidance led me to passages that proved of great use in refining my ideas. Finally, I am thankful for the comments of an anonymous reviewer who spurred me to reflect more deeply on my position and who inspired significant improvements in the final draft.

References

Bernstein, J. M. (1997), ‘Conscience and Transgression: The Exemplarity of Tragic Action’ in G. K. Browning (ed.), Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Reappraisal. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 79-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, R. (2002), Tales of the Mighty Dead. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Förster, E. (2012), The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy: A Systematic Reconstruction, trans. Brady Bowman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1991), Elements of the Philosophy of Right, 1819-1820, ed. A. Wood, trans. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2006), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, One Volume Edition: The Lectures of 1827, ed. P. C. Hodgson, trans. R. F. Brown, P. C. Hodgson and J. M. Stewart. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2010), Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. T. Pinkard. Available online at: http://terrypinkard.weebly.com/phenomenology-of-spirit-page.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2000), Vorlesungen über die Philosophie des Rechts: 1819-20, eds. E. Angehrn, M. Bondeli and H. N. Seelman. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Knowles, D. (2002), Hegel and the ‘Philosophy of Right’. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mohr, G. (1997), ‘Unrecht und Strafe’ in L. Siep (ed.), Klassiker Auslegen: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 95-124.Google Scholar
Neuhouser, F. (2000), Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkard, T. (2012), Hegel’s Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quante, M. (2004), Hegel’s Concept of Action, trans. D. Moyar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. (1959), Individuals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vieweg, K. (2012), Das Denken der Freiheit. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. (1990), Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar