Hegel on the connection between morality and politics
–we’ve looked at Hegel’s argument for property, and his arguments for the kinds of rights that emerge when we move towards a more embodied conception of the self (in morality). This already shows the connection to politics. However in the third section of philosophy of right, “Ethical Life,” Hegel is outlining a system where things are not just focused on the subject of morality or of property rights but of a subject situated in a community where there is a harmony between the rights and orientations of the individual on the one hand, and the laws and institutions of the society on the other.
–we need to look more clearly particularly at what is entailed for Hegel as an institutional reflection of the moral standpoint.
–firstly, because Hegel is advocating a right of property this turns out to be a kind of self-interested market society, where people are pursuing their own needs and interests amongst others who are the same. This is a society based on property. Institutionally what accompanies this is an “Administration of justice” or a set of laws and courts and police to enforce the laws. However, we’re still dealing with the level of abstract right at this point in the text. (a righting of wrongs).
–the extent to which Hegel goes beyond such a conception in his vision of the political community, which reflects the more developed moral standpoint, can be found in the section on “police” or public authority and corporation.
–the police or public authority for Hegel are necessary because in freely pursuing our property rights we impact others (e.g. 232—drive a car—cause pollution, dump wastes into water on your property—affects larger water system)—this reflects the reality that we are not just abstract and isolated, but embodied and interdependent. We must have “regulation” and police control of such things. The state has the right to regulate us in our use of property because of our ties to/impacts on others (233)
–secondly, because there are certain universal needs of members of the community, it makes more sense for the public authority to undertake certain projects, such as street-lighting, bridge-building, roads, public health, fixing of prices of basic goods. (235/36)
–he’s advocating a middle way between market and society: “The individual must have a right to work for his bread as he pleases, but the public also has a right to insist that essential tasks shall be properly done. Both points of view must be satisfied, and freedom of trade should not be such as to jeopardize the general good.”(236A)
–beyond this, because civil society is formally a realm open to all (abstract right, formal equality), individuals however enter it from different positions (family capital etc.), and so have different chances. It is not an even playing field. Therefore civil society has obligations to individuals, in terms of a public education system (239), a safety net (241). The latter in particular is necessary because of the contingencies of market societs, that they can reduce individuals to poverty. –they can/will spiral down, and be deprived of other possibilities, education, skills acquisition, health services, administration of justice. These serves must be publicly provided, at least for the poor.
–we need the standpoint of morality to see this—from the standpoint of abstract right the background factors that affect individuals’ chances are invisible—don’t come into view. Need the whole picture of the individual and don’t get this til the standpoint of morality. A free person in a finite condition.
–so seeing the possibility of the creation of a “rabble” or a pauper class is only possible with the standpoint of morality. And to understand how/why this would happen without judging the individuals negatively at the level of individual character (rather see it is a social phenomenon). The “rabble” for Hegel is not just poverty but a culture of poverty wherein there is a rejection of the values of civil society because it doesn’t work for them.—honesty, hard work, law-abidingness, respect for property, etcetera.-
–society must take responsibility for this endemic possibility (endemic to market societies), and provide public services for health and education and minimum subsistence so that this culture of poverty does not develop
–242—argument against a charitable system “private sympathy and accidental occurrence of knowledge and charitable disposition” (242)
–state should provide in a a universal manner to all thos in distress and in a way that targets the cause of distress and helps people back on their feet
–243-44
–generally in this section Hegel is able to portray the larger context of a society that roots itself fundamentally in the principle of private property
–poverty and disaffection on the one hand, and extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands and gross luxury
–caused by on the one hand the drive to multiply needs and meet needs in a manner that makes the most profit—this leads to techniques of mass production and thus to des-skilled, alienated labour which is routine, uninteresting, often badly paid, and makes individuals very dependent on the fluctuations of the market (no skills to take elsewhere)
–on the other hand, the ups and downs of the business cycle—dependent oln trade, international conditions, etcetera—leads to insecurity and unemployment—longterm unemployment leads to a culture of poverty, resentment of the rich, rejection of the society, frivolous and idle
–the concentration of wealth is developed further by marx—private property and the market turn into capitalism—need capital in order to get going—enterprises are expansionist—need more capital—number of capitalists shrinks
–besides public schooling and other welfare services, Hegel’s main response to this problem is the corporation
