grundlinien.de

284

In so far as the objective element of a decision — the knowledge of its content and circumstances, and the legal and other grounds that determine it — alone is capable of responsibility, i.e. of a proof of objectivity, and can therefore pertain to a deliberative body distinct from the personal will of the monarch as such, these deliberative offices or individuals alone are subject to responsibility; but the monarch’s distinctive majesty, as the ultimate deciding subjectivity, is exalted above all responsibility for acts of government.

DE

Comments

One response to “284”

  1. Karl Marx Avatar
    Karl Marx

    Here Hegel describes quite empirically the power of the ministers, as it is mostly determined in constitutional states. The only thing philosophy adds is that it turns this »empirical fact« into existence, into the predicate of the »moment of particularity within the princely power«.

    (The ministers represent the rational, objective side of the sovereign will. To them, therefore, also falls the honour of responsibility, while the monarch is fobbed off with the peculiar imagination of »majesty«.) The speculative moment is thus very meagre. The development in particular, by contrast, rests on entirely empirical, indeed very abstract, very poor empirical grounds.

    Thus, for example, the choice of ministers is placed within »the unrestricted arbitrariness« of the monarch, »since they have to do with the immediate person of the monarch«, that is, since they are ministers. In the same way, the »unrestricted choice« of the monarch’s valet could be developed out of the absolute idea.

    Somewhat better already is the ground given for the responsibility of the ministers, »insofar as the objective side of a decision — knowledge of its content and circumstances, the legal and other determining grounds — alone is capable of responsibility, i.e. of proof of objectivity«. Of course, »the ultimate deciding subjectivity«, pure subjectivity, pure arbitrariness, is not objective, and hence also incapable of any proof of objectivity, hence incapable of any responsibility, as soon as an individual is the sanctified, sanctioned existence of arbitrariness. Hegel’s proof is conclusive if one proceeds from the constitutional presuppositions, but Hegel has not thereby proven these presuppositions, for he has analyzed them only within their own basic conception. In this confusion lies the whole uncriticalness of the Hegelian philosophy of right.

Leave a Reply