|89| Right, which, as something particular and hence manifold, as against its universality and simplicity existing in itself, acquires the form of a semblance, is such a semblance, in part, in itself or immediately; in part, it is posited, through the subject, as semblance; and in part, it is posited simply as null — unwitting or civil wrong, fraud, and crime.
Wrong
α) Unwitting wrong: recognition of right – counts for me as right for itself – wrong in itself.
β) Wrong that, for itself, is at the same time still right – counts [as right] for the other, not for me – semblance of right, semblance of the other’s consent.
γ) in and for itself – right counts for both, and [so does] wrong.
α) Wrong as right – is right for me – each wills the universal right – holds the other’s right to be a semblance – is in itself a semblance
β) Right as semblance only for the other
γ) Wrong in and for itself, not even as semblance – counts as wrong for both –
Wrong is thus the semblance of essence, which posits itself as independent. If the semblance is only in itself and not also for itself, that is, if the wrong counts for me as right, then it is here unwitting. Semblance here exists for right, but not for me. The second [kind of] wrong is fraud. Here the wrong is not a semblance for right in itself, but rather takes place in such a way that I present a semblance to the other. In defrauding, right is, for me, only a semblance. In the first case, wrong was a semblance for right. In the second, right itself is, for me as the wrongdoer, only a semblance. The third [kind of] wrong is finally crime. This is wrong both in itself and for me: but here I will the wrong and make no use even of the semblance of right. The other, against whom the crime is committed, is not meant to regard the wrong, which is wrong in and for itself, as right. The difference between crime and fraud is that in the latter there still lies, in the form of the act, a recognition of right, which is likewise absent in the case of crime.
§ 83: Three kinds of wrong
There are three kinds of wrong.
First, wrong without bad intent. Two people argue about a thing. Each honestly believes it is his. One of them is mistaken. He does wrong without wanting to. This is civil wrong.
Second, fraud. Here the wrongdoer knows that he is in the wrong. But he acts as if everything is right. He deceives the other.
Third, crime. Here the wrongdoer wants the wrong openly. He does not even pretend to act rightly.
What links the three?
In the first wrong, both still respect right. After all, both only want what is theirs by right. In fraud, at least the form stays intact. In crime, all respect for right is missing.
Summary: Wrong has three stages: the honest dispute, fraud and crime. From stage to stage, respect for right fades.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.