[p. 243]
§ 18
In the first case what is needed is merely the setting out of the grounds of right, through which it emerges to whom the disputed particular right belongs. But for this judging of the views of the two parties a third is necessary, who is free from their interest in possessing the thing, in order to look merely at right purely as such.
Explanation. In the first case, then, the civil legal dispute takes place. In such a dispute the right of another is laid claim to, but on a ground of right. Both contending parties agree in this, that they recognise right as right. Only he who has right is to come into possession, and not perhaps he who has influence or power and more merit. The parties diverge from one another only with regard to the subsumption of the particular or of the universal. It follows, then, that no personal offence takes place between the judge and the two parties, insofar as the one is not satisfied with his verdict, nor on the part of the judge against the party to whom he denies the right. Because no attack on the personal takes place here, it follows that the party which has wrongfully attacked the property of the other is not punished.
§ 19
The other case, on the contrary, concerns the violation of my personal external freedom, of my body and life, or also of my property in general, through violence.
Explanation. Under this belongs first the unrightful deprivation of my freedom through imprisonment or slavery. It is a deprivation of natural external freedom, not to be able to betake oneself wherever one wants, and the like. There belongs here further a violation of body and life. This is much more significant than the deprivation of my property. Although life and body are something external, like
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.