grundlinien.de

127

The particularity of the interests of the natural will, gathered into its simple totality, is personal existence as life. Life, in extreme danger and in collision with the rightful property of another, has a claim to a right of necessity (not as a matter of equity, but as a right), since, on the one side, there stands the infinite violation of existence, and thereby total rightlessness, and, on the other side, only the violation of a single, restricted existence of freedom — whereby, at the same time, right as such and the capacity for rights of the party whose property alone is thereby violated are recognized.

From the right of necessity flows the benefit of competency, whereby a debtor is left his tools of trade, his agricultural implements, clothes, and, in general, so much of his property — that is, of the property of his creditors — as is regarded as serving the possibility of his subsistence, even of a subsistence appropriate to his station.

DE

Comments

2 responses to “127”

  1. Hegel (Notes) Avatar
    Hegel (Notes)

    Life also has a genuine right against formal right, i.e., likewise an absolute moment. It is particularity according to its content in its totality – not, like my well-being, merely a universality of reflection. – Well-being, not something actual on its own account.
    Life [is the] infinite mode of reality, is the real side of personality itself, determined in and for itself, not a matter of opinion [?].
    – Well-being [is] an abstract word – well-being does not lie in any one thing – but life [lies] in one circumstance, one moment. –
    Fiat justitia, pereat mundus – an empty phrase.
    Necessity is a sacred word, when genuine – the whole of a condition – the necessity of a whole – life, family. –
    For others, necessity [carries] a higher warrant.
    The right of necessity – as existence – namely universal, not limited, – but rather abstract existence as such; existence, through its universal scope, sets itself over against right – formally infinite, but limited in its existence. These are the two universal moments of right itself in collision – the revolt of the necessity of life –

  2. Eduard Gans (Additions) Avatar
    Eduard Gans (Additions)

    Life, as the totality of ends, has a right against abstract right. If, for example, it can be preserved by stealing a loaf of bread, then a person’s property is indeed thereby infringed, but it would be wrong to regard this act as ordinary theft. Were the person whose life is endangered not permitted to act so as to preserve himself, he would be determined as devoid of rights, and since his life would thereby be denied him, his entire freedom would be negated. Securing life certainly involves a great many particulars, and if we look to the future, we must go into these details. But it is necessary only to live now – the future is not absolute and remains at the mercy of contingency. Hence only the necessity of the immediate present can justify an unlawful act, because in its omission there would in turn lie the commission of a wrong, indeed of the highest wrong, namely the total negation of the existence of freedom; – the beneficium competentiae has its place here, in that, within relations of kinship or other relations of proximity, there is a right to demand that one not be entirely sacrificed to right.

Leave a Reply