The State and Absolute Power to Decide Morality
Hegel's philosophy places the state as the supreme arbitrator in human affairs. In the annals of history, men exercise their passion for bringing to fruition the purposes of the spirit which he refers to as freedom (Hegel, 1953). Therefore, men act in concert with the purpose of an influencing power, passion, in their person in the accomplishment of acts that determine and lead to a cascade of events ultimately resulting to the formation of states. As such, the state becomes a representation, embodiment, or manifestation, of the spirit and freedom that the human agents entangled themselves in constructing (Hegel, 1953). Hegel uses the analogy of the construction process to explain the formation of states and their relation to humans. In the erection of a house, elements such as fire, water, and wind are used to shape metals and raise walls. These are violent elements but are in subjection to the human genius without their knowledge. At the end of it all, these elements are kept away from accessing the completed house (Hegel, 1953). The house then holds the human agent and isolates the mediums of construction. This analogy can be understood to infer that the house is the state and the wind, fire and other elements the human agents that bring it into being. The human agent inhabiting the house would consequently be the spirit or freedom. Thus, the people that were passionate about organizing the state becomes subject to the state, which has to control the extent of their freedom.
Since the events leading to the establishment of a state are often violent, a well-organized state, automatically, becomes the determinant, protector, and expositor of what is moral. This position can be understood correctly by assuming that all human agents are violent and entrusting leadership to any single person cannot guarantee an orderly society. That naturally men are predisposed to exploit power or topple order (Hegel, 1953). With no visible ruler, under such circumstances, a gaping power vacuum is created that must be filled not by human being lest a totalitarian and militaristic rule will follow suit, but by a mandated structure or the state. Therefore the state becomes and a means and an end in itself. This position would be summed up by Hegel’s maxim that all that is rational exists and all that exists is rational which implies that since states exist, they are rational and thus serve a purpose (Hegel, 1953). By extension, the purpose of the state is superior to the freedoms of individuals themselves. It is as though the people, incapable of controlling themselves in an orderly manner, subjected themselves to servitude under the structure that they created.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
By accepting that man is controlled by passion and that someone different should rule over him to bring about order, man discredits himself, and the existence of states are justified. Hegel argues that the rise and fall of states is advancement towards a purer form of diplomacy. He alludes to the laws of the state as the standard set forth to determine what is good, bad, incorrect, or correct. Therefore, the state finds its power through established laws a further delegated to men. He argues that thinkers as men of insight can move with precise correctness in determining what is needed just at the time it is more appropriate (Hegel, 1953). The rules not only control the general affairs of life but also extend to the very fabric of private life. Again, the mandated people and those committed to or take part in the struggle for freedom and other political ambitions represent the desire of the greater majority in their time and that their direction, thoughts, and actions should be esteemed. Here, Hegel demonstrates the thin line that exists between people and the state. While the state may have been represented elsewhere as an authoritative ruler, it is indeed formed by men. The case scenario of Caesar warring against his equal and his final rise to superiority and after that his fulfillment of the desire of reason in his age are brought to view as an exemplification of the struggles and process that furnish a state.
On the question of the state as the guidepost to morality, it is worthy of concluding that I concur with Hegel as far as his arguments are, without comparing them to others’ assuming that his position is the only known opinion to man. The violent nature of the society as demonstrated in the history and his account through the turning and overturning of power necessitate the establishment of a system of order through the state. Secondly, the state is mandated and therefore it is only through providing directives on important societal questions that it serves its purpose otherwise should be dissolved which would again be many steps backward.
Whether His Position Is Correct
In the preceding arguments, I support Hegel that the state has a role to play in determining important societal questions. I do not agree that the state should extend its power to the determination of what is or is not moral in entirety. However, I agree that it reserves the power to some degree but in important questions. By arguing that the state has the right to do so, Hegel errs on his prior positions as he led us to the ultimate end of his reasoning. First, he agreed that the spirit seeks freedom (Hegel, 1953). Freedom cannot be available where the state is the dictator of what the society ought to consider moral and immoral. Otherwise, the state itself, which is an embodiment of freedom, would be in bondage to itself; bondage to power that dictates the conscience of man. This would be a conflict between the prerogatives of the state and individual responsibility.
There are extreme cases that can invite the intervention of the state in deciding what is moral or otherwise. Instances such as willful killing, theft, rape, and order should be handled by state power. However, some moral questions are so minute that to invite the opinion of the state or the state’s decision to have it entangle itself in such matters would be meaningless or to some degree abuse of power. Cases such as the decision whether to share or not to, cultural practices, and other matters fall at the individual level or family, Society, and community and should be left for those persons to manage unless Hegel extended his definition of state to include even the lower levels of governance. However, it will be found not to be his intention for it would make the state to be a hierarchy beginning at an individual level to the national height.
A single maxim cannot be established as the epitome of morality. This is true from the diverse belief of what is moral and what is not as proposed by the proponents of moral relativism. This theory holds that morality is as diverse as human beings are and can be decided at various levels beginning at the individual level (Lukes, 2008). The free, will to decide what to do or not to, would be the true fulfillment of Hegel’s position. His understanding defines an explorative spirit that tries many options to find which works best for every circumstance. The state should practice this principle if indeed Hegel’s position is correct. However, since there is conflict within the spirit and a need for restraint, the state is justified to perform the role of the moderator but not to establish a do or die rule of thumb on moral questions.
Conclusion
Hegel’s position on the role of state and morality attempts to provide a philosophical explanation of the dilemma of morality. His arguments justify the place of the state in determining, through laws, what is right or wrong for its citizens. The people give this prerogative to the state and become subjective to it. The extension granted the state is only feasible by understanding the history of the rise and fall of persons and organizational structures as the man traversed history to achieve a more subtle form of governance. The dark past is used as a reason to sustain the existence of the state by constantly referring to man’s inability to govern himself and the common good of bringing all under one state. Nonetheless, the state should not exercise an arbitrary power over its subjects to dictate all matters of moral correctness. Some subtle elements of this topic should be left to lower organs such as individuals, families, communities, and societies to determine. Thus, the definition of the state should be redefined to include even lower forms of organizational structures
References
Hegel, G. W. F. (1953). Reason in history. A General Introduction to the Philosophy of History (RS Hartman, Trad.). New York: Bobbs-Merril.
Lukes, S. (2008). Moral relativism. Picador.
