grundlinien.de

93

Coercion has, of this — that it destroys itself in its own concept — the real display in this: that coercion is superseded by coercion; it is, therefore, not merely conditionally rightful but necessary — namely, as a second coercion, which is the superseding of a first coercion.

The violation of a contract through non-performance of what was stipulated, or of legal duties toward the family or the state, through act or omission, is, to that extent, a first coercion, or at least violence, insofar as I withhold or deprive another of a property that is his, or of a performance owed to him. — Pedagogical coercion, or coercion exercised against wildness and crudeness, appears indeed as a first coercion, not following upon an antecedent first coercion. |93| But the merely natural will is in itself violence against the in-itself existing Idea of freedom, which must be taken under protection against such an uncultivated will and brought to validity within it. Either an ethical determinate being is already posited in family or state, against which that naturalness is an act of violence, or only a state of nature — a condition of violence in general — is present, in which case the Idea grounds, against this, a right of heroes.

DE ES

Comments

2 responses to “93”

  1. Eduard Gans (Additions) Avatar
    Eduard Gans (Additions)

    In the state there can no longer be any heroes: these occur only in an uncultivated condition. Their end is a rightful, necessary, and properly political one, and this they carry out as their own affair. The heroes who founded states, who introduced marriage and agriculture, did not, of course, do this as an already recognized right, and these actions still appear as their particular will; but as the higher right of the Idea against mere naturalness, this coercion exercised by heroes is a rightful one, for by kindness little can be achieved against the violence of nature.

  2. Hegel (Simple) Avatar
    Hegel (Simple)

    § 93: Coercion against coercion

    Violence contradicts itself. What follows from this in reality? We cancel coercion through coercion.

    A first coercion is wrong. A second coercion that cancels the first is right. More than that: It is necessary.

    What is a first coercion?

    Not only an assault. Whoever does not fulfill a contract also uses violence. He keeps from me what is mine. The same goes for whoever does not fulfill his duties toward family or state. Against this, one may use coercion.

    And when parents coerce a child?

    That looks like a first coercion. After all, the child has done nothing bad. But the crude, merely natural will is itself already a kind of violence. It turns against the freedom that lies in the child as a seed. Education protects this freedom against wildness.

    The right of heroes:

    Where there is no state at all yet, only violence rules. Then certain individuals have a special right. We call them heroes. They founded states. They brought in marriage and farming. No one had allowed them to do this. Yet they acted with the right of the Idea against crude nature. Kindness alone does not get you far against such violence.

    In the state, there are no more heroes. There, the right that all recognize holds good.

    Summary: The first coercion is wrong. The second cancels it and is right. Education and the right of heroes also turn against a first violence: crude nature.

Leave a Reply