Name: Saeed Ahmad M.A.

History(Previous) Kirorimal College Roll No:41156727

HEGEL: ABSTRACT RIGHT

George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was born in Stuttgart in 1778. His father was a senior financial official in the administration in the duchy of Wurttemburg. He started learning Latin as a very young age, courtesy his mother and even after her death kept practicing it. He also seemed to have this unending thirst for knowledge and the knowledge he acquired helped in writing great works such as the Phenomenology of Spirit, The Philosophy of Right and many others too. He can be called as one of the creators of German Idealism. His work was a revolutionary landmark in European philosophy and was a precursor to Marxism as Karl Marx himself was a Hegelian. Hegel intended his writings for people well versed with Western philosophy. Even though he did provide an encyclopaedia, he assumed that people reading his work would be familiar with older Western Philosophers such as Kant and Descartes. His dialectic is one of the most difficult to understand and therefore, just a casual reading does not serve the purpose of understanding Hegel. In this essay, I attempt I have attempted to examine and possibly analyze bit by bit of Hegels theory of Abstract Right. ABSTRACT RIGHT According to Hegel, the Abstract Right arises out of the conscious free will. The manifestation of this free will is external and that makes it abstract. This external manifestation is also an indicator of a persons freedom. Hegels theory of abstract right is divided into three parts i.e. Property, Contract and Wrong. In this theory he talks about the conception and the unique individuality of a persons free will. The free will, in effect, presents an alternative view to reality i.e. the free will is a contrast of the particular to the universal. In a sense, there can be no conception of a particular idea or free will without having an inherent consciousness of the universal or reality. This free will is exclusive to the individual and definite ends. This free will when it is in potentiality has nothing opposed to it but from the perspective of the social norm or reality, it is in contrast to it. This very contrast of the particular to the universal gives the will its definite character. Hegel says, mans biggest aim is to be a person. However, in order to be a person, one has to undergo a transformation from being a subject to a person. Any living thing having a

thought process can be called a subject. However, forming an idea or free will by taking reality into context makes a subject a person. Therefore, one should have the consciousness of I forming this free will and a conscious idea of himself being free. Thus, the act of a free will can be called the act of personality. It is this very notion that certifies that man is the only species in nature that has the right to form a free will as every man born is free by nature. While an animal may have a thought process and might even conceive free will, there is no realization of an I forming this free will. The free will has finite ends and a potential but that is not realized till the idea is actually conceived. This act of free will is an indicator of freedom. If a person possesses a right, then he attains some kind of authority. However, this does not mean that someone can insist upon a right. This is because the free will and the resulting abstract right is in contrast to the universal and presents, it can be said, an alternative world view which could be possible in the future. So the existence of this alternative world view is a possibility but is not certain. PROPERTY In order for him to assert his free will and freedom, a person must give a sort of an external sphere to his freedom in the form of property. This external sphere, as Hegel says, is not only distinguishable from him but directly different and separable. Hegel is also of the belief that man becomes rational in the process of possession. But this seems to propagate that a man who does not undertake the act of possession isnt rational which is wrong. A mans rationality cannot be measured according to whether he does or doesnt own property. Yes property is an assertion of a persons freedom and conscious free will but it does not mean that every person who possesses property is rational just by virtue of his act of possession. According to Hegel there is supposedly a natural right of appropriation that mankind possesses and therefore man has the right to assert his will on any object, thus, making it his own., as quoted by Hegel. He also goes on to say that the free will is infinite in nature as compared to everything else. Free will is the idealism which refuses to hold that things they are can be self complete. In a sense, an object does not have a means to an end until it is possessed or appropriated by someones will. Possession can be defined as a person having or asserting their power over something else. This way the will is actualised. This is what accentuates propertys distinctive character. It may seem that property is a means of satisfaction for a person considering the fact that the persons needs are primary. However, possession is the first instance of a persons freedom. For Hegel, jointly owned property is a dissolvable community as it may or may not allow a person to retain his share in it.

The person, who has a conscious feeling of himself being an I is an organism and is in possession of his soul and body. It is the same with animals. But unlike humans, animals have no possession over their life as such as they do not have a conscious will to do so. So, a body in order to be useful must first be possessed by the spirit. A person is a free being and therefore cannot be used as a beast of burden and any harm inflicted affects both his soul and body. This is the very difference between damage to external property and damage to body. Though all persons are equal in terms of personality, the conscious free will makes one person different from another. Hegel also talks about property saying that everyone should have property. But equality in the amount of property doesnt sit well with Hegel. I agree with Hegel is the sense that equality of property seems to idealistic a concept as it requires an immense amount of organization on the part of a government as that is the only body that is capable of carrying out such an act. Hegel supports this argument by saying that nature cannot be unjust in terms of distribution of property as it is not free. But he also maintains that a person cannot attempt to posses the property of another person as that is wrong. Property can be said to have three phases: 1) Act of possession: Possession can be simply defined as taking occupying an object through the process of bodily grasp or by forming an image of the object that one wants to possess. Everything that is borne out of mans property adds to his wealth. Also the thing that is borne becomes separate from man as well as his will. 2) Use of the object: An object, when in possession only serves the need of the persons will. It is true the will of the person that the object fulfils it purpose as it has no purpose without an owner and therefore, no means to an end. No object has a soul until a person endows one in it. For example, buildings. 3) Relinquishment of Property: A person may relinquish property when no part of his will is in the property. Relinquishment can take place when an object completes its purpose or when he has no control over it. He therefore, relinquishes it and it comes under the possession of someone else. On the contrary when a person takes possession of his own personality thorough his free will, that cannot be relinquished as they are not mere physical manifestations that can be possessed by someone else. Hegel further asserts that the disposal or sacrifice of life is not the manifestation of ones personality. Therefore, he believes that a person does not have a right to relinquish his life. However, this statement is slightly contradictory as something like the idea of committing suicide arises out the conscious free will of the person. A person might be forced into suicide but

even then, the idea of committing suicide is conceived in his very mind. The idea of suicide in its nature is opposed to the social norm i.e. reality. Property can be determined is with its relation to other external objects and it also is the embodiment of a will as well as it exists for another will. Hence, a person shares a common will and this is Contract. In Contract the particular will is combined with another will and the universal will does not obtain any high status. It is just there for cooperation. CONTRACT In Contract, property is considered to be the embodiment of the will of two different persons. A person ceases to be an owner of a property once he acknowledges the will of another person in a property as property belongs to a person when it is only the embodiment of his personal will and not the will of someone else. A person ceasing to be an owner is also a free will. However, it should not be assumed that every will is the same. Rather, each will is distinct at different points of time. When one person ceases to be an owner by virtue of his free will, there still remains a will. This is the nature of Contract. So, while one free will relinquishes a property, it picks up another property at the same time and gives the new property its means to an end. A contract can never be considered the right of a person because it is something external. An external object can be part of a contract as internal objects such as thoughts and emotions are not physical things. Hegel does not agree with the the introduction of the relations of contract with private property into the functions of the state i.e. the contract of individual rights as well as the rights of prince and state. He asserts that the so called modern notion of a contract of all with all is wrong. This is because a person cannot leave or enter a state at his own will. He believes that a state should provide this option to its citizens. Throughout this argument he keeps asserting the importance of existence of a state. For him a modern state progresses because of its absolute end. Hegel goes on describe various types of contract. Gift for him, is characterised by the act of negative disposal of an object by a person and the consequent positive acceptance of the object by another person. This means that a person gifts something to someone else when he does not have any use of it or doesnt want it. This statement seems false as the act of gifting someone arises out of the free will. A man, for example, buys a diamond ring for his wife as he wants to gift it to her. The conception of this idea arises out of his own free will. He knows that the ring has no use for him even before he buys it. So, the idea of a so called negative disposal seems flawed. Hegel also seems to miss out in analysing the emotional aspect i.e. the reason for the man gifting his wife the diamond ring, which is love.

Exchange is also another form of contract where both persons relinquish property but still remain owners. The person relinquishes his property but at the same time gets another property from the other person in which his will can be embodied. According to Hegel, real contract occurs when each of the contracting parties, yields up and acquires possession. On the other hand, for Hegel, formal contract occurs when one just gives up or acquires. In contract, it is crucial that both the common will of the contracting parties as well as the particular will of each individual should be actualized as contracts nature is of the relation of the two wills. Stipulation is the premise of the contract and a person has to carry out the stipulation so that the contract is complete. Hegel clearly distinguishes between promise and contract asserting that mere promise in not binding and universal as a person can change his mind about the promise. On the other hand, the contract is legally binding and universal. Once a person enters a contract he has to complete it. He goes on to contest Fitche argument of contract being subject to moral obligation and earnest of either of the contracting parties. Fitches argument proposes the view that a person can opt out of a contract later. Hegel thinks otherwise and asserts that one cannot opt out of a contract once they enter into it as the whole concept of an obligation only arises in a contract when a person wills it. Taking Fitches argument into consideration, it would mean that a person will contradict his own particular will as well as the common will he agreed upon with the other party and, thus, it seems wrong to do so. Contract can be completed through a security or pledge. In Hegels words, security or pledge is concerned with an object which I give up or an object which is to be mine. This implies that I as a person is only in possession of the value of the object rather than the object itself. Security can therefore, also be referred to as a stipulation which completes the contract in terms of possession of the object. In security, possession is guaranteed but is still not actualized. WRONG When a contract is violated, a wrong is committed i.e. wrong occurs when there is a violation of the common as well as the particular will. This violation also leads eventually to the concretization of a right. This implies that the violation leads the abstract right to attain a more actualized nature. Wrong leads to the abstract right being contradictory to the particular and therefore, strengthens the right. Hegel says that The right when, violated or negated, negates this very negation and becomes a reality. So, at the beginning of a contract, the abstract right is a mere possibility but it reaches a state of actuality once it is violated. In a sense, the particular will that leads to wrong,

violates the essence of reality and tries to present something which seems real and this makes it unreal. Wrong can be divided into three categories: 1) Unpremeditated or civic wrong: If the wrong seems right for a person but is not the case then it can be called as unpremeditated wrong. People can have different conceptions of what is right and what is wrong and this can cause contradictions. In order to solve these contradictions, the law is considered to be the norm for judgment. According to Hegel this judgment has a negative nature as it negates the mine of one of the either two contesting parties. In Hegels words, unpremeditated wrong negates only the particular will but pays respect to the general right. Looking at it from the perspective of free will, a person commits wrong when his free will asserts that he is right. 2) Fraud: Fraud occurs when a person violates the right of other contracting party by pretending to agree with the universal right even though he does not think so. The other contracting party is made to believe that his rights have not been violated. Fraud serves the purpose of the person who commits fraud, thus, neglecting and in simple terms, fooling the other person.

3) Violence and Crime: Crime is committed when the wrong can easily be seen unlike a fraud where the wrong is concealed. It is committed with the desire to violate the universal as well as the particular right. The free will of a person cannot be forced externally unless it decides to do so itself. When this free will is forced to do something that harms it by an external factor, crime is committed. In that sense, this force can be called violence. Hegel goes on to say that the act of crime also arises out of the conscious free will of the violator and subsequently supersedes the free will of the violated. This force, thus, can never have a right. An abstract right is external manifestation of a persons free will and when violence is committed against it, it is crime. Crime disregards the particular as well as the universal will. Punishment for a crime can be questioned in the sense that punishment is also a violation of a persons free will and right but the question arises whether violating the free will and right of a person who himself has done the same is justified or not? The answer is yes as he himself has violated the contract and therefore deserves punishment.

However, Hegels categorization of wrong into just 3 kinds seems incomplete because considering these definitions dispensing justice would be difficult. For example, a jihadi commits an act of terror believing what he has done is right as he has done it in the name of god. He is completely aware of the universal law that one should not kill others but in spite of that he commits mass killings as he believes that his god has willed it. In such a situation, how does one judge the jihadi? Going by Hegels argument, he has committed an unpremeditated wrong in believing that he is right in killing so many people. But, at the same time, he has also committed crime as he has killed so many people. This situation can also be looked from the view point that fraud is committed against the jihadi by the person who recruited him or who gives him money and a false sense of belief. This causes a dilemma. Similarly, if the case of a woman who murders her husband because he beats her be considered then both committed crime against each others will. So the question is whether just these three divisions are adequate enough to judge someone or not? Hegels view on abstract right compels a person to really think about the world and how it functions. It needs an in depth analysis in order to be understood. This is because Hegels dialectic is such that it provides a thesis as well as an anti thesis and therefore, seems to be a very complete argument in spite of certain shortcomings that I believe so exist.