The shape of moral spirit has now taken the place of ethical spirit and a new conflict emerges. The conflict or “disharmony” that comprises the moral view of the world is between pure moral action, as realized individuality, and nature, as the singularity of and oneness with abstract purpose. The unity of both is a requirement of reason (114-115). Yet, the completion of this unity is considered an unending progression, an “absolute task,” which is never actually realized (117). The completion of this unity is not of interest to Hegel because it leads to a series of contradictions. These contradictions, however, seem pertinent to some modern day issues. So I’m going to resist the urge to summarize the rest of this section and attempt to examine the contradictions of the moral spirit – the antinomy of the moral worldview.
The antinomy of the moral view of the world states, "There is no morally complete, actual self-consciousness; there is no morally actual self-consciousness." Self-certainty of moral self-consciousness - the requirement of reason - is a unity of duty (pure knowledge, moral action) and actuality (existence, nature). The immediate individual being is pure knowledge and action, and this unity is the true objective reality. The contradictions occur when moral consciousness is not self-certain of itself, when duty distinguishes itself from actuality, when there is a separation of the in-itself from the being for-itself (121-123).
The dissonance of the antinomy seems pretty easy to detect today. Societies based on a market-driven economy provide more examples of dissonance than of harmony. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” metaphor used to justify the free-market, insists that social/collective benefits are maximized when each individual pursues their own self-interests. Placing our faith on forces of the free-market is akin to the misrepresentation of moral consciousness that occurs when the in-itself is separated from the for-itself. Moral actions, then, are largely dictated by profit-driven economics which ultimately create a false sense of fulfillment. Accordingly, moral actions are constantly at odds with actuality thereby continually contradict one another through a series of misrepresentations. The extent to which we value education, public spaces, people, plants, and animals seems to vary according to market forces. Reactions to the recent earthquake in Japan served as a gross example of this false moral consciousness. An anchorman on CNBC expressed his relief to find the earthquake’s negligible effects on the market by stating, “The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that.”
After searching for something/someone to exemplify the unity required of this antinomy, I’ve almost resorted to thinking that only plants and animals have achieved the unity of actuality and duty. But, this simplification ignores a large span of human history. Although our moral consciousness is susceptible to misrepresentations, according to Hegel, we are capable of recognizing such misrepresentations as contradictions. Much like Kant, Hegel does not believe we can complete this unity. Hegel, however, seems to consider the mere recognition of the antinomy and our striving for its unity as progress toward a higher level of consciousness.
I think you are right that the unity of actuality and duty may not be found in human beings, but it may be found in certain plants and animals that are not restricted by a pot a leash. I have often contemplated this very notion. It is our freedom, or apparent freedom, which is to blame for our inability to achieve unity of actuality and duty. It is the plethora of contradictory desires prevalent in every person that is responsible for this. In fact, it is this very irrationality or freedom (or whatever you want to call it) which makes a person a person. In this sense, one might argue that it is a good thing that we are unable to perfectly unite our actions with our duty, this is what “separates us from the beasts”, but then again, the very desire to want to be “higher” than the beasts, is one of those desires which are irrational and contribute to the disunity of actuality and duty.
ReplyDeleteA wild bird may have the sole desires of eating and mating, this is its duty. If the bird lives its whole life consistently achieving these two ends, it has lived a perfect life, one in which actuality and duty are perfectly united. A person might argue that a life like this one is meaningless, but it would only be so on a person’s standards, standards which are certainly not shared by a bird.
Yes, exactly. I was scrutinizing my dog as I was sorting this out; but, I agree, undomesticated wildlife is a better example of this unity. So if fauna and flora have supposedly achieved the perfect unity of actuality and duty, it is because they are unconscious of their actions and the universality of such actions, right? Isn't this a demotion for human consciousness? I retreated from this argument as soon as I realized its implications.
ReplyDeleteNever retreat from a logical argument! One way of looking at it is a sort of demotion of human consciousness, but it may also be looked at as a way of recognizing that we are more on a level with animals than we tend to think. Although I would find it difficult to give up eating chicken. One of our essential differences from animals is our passions; these are very much the defining feature exclusive to a human. In a sense, these passions are ultimately meaningless, but being that we do have them, we must do our best to satisfy them. One might say humans are inferior to animals in that we have desires often too numerous and complex to fully satisy, but at the same time we are superior to animals in our ability to evade obstacles interfering with our goals. Often animals (our food) are faced with challenges that they are unable to find solutions to (getting captured by humans). An animal might live a perfect life by chance, but a human may strive for perfection through freedom.
ReplyDeleteThat must be one hell of a dog.
ReplyDelete