黑格尔对自由意志问题的处理

Q3 Arts and Humanities
R. Donoghue
{"title":"黑格尔对自由意志问题的处理","authors":"R. Donoghue","doi":"10.5840/symposion20218210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"G.W.F. Hegel offers a thorough, complex, and unique theory of free will in the Philosophy of Right. In what follows, I argue that Hegel’s conceptualization of free will makes the mistake of collapsing the possibility of organic freedom (the ability to act freely of causal determination) into the potential for moral freedom (the capacity to act in accordance with Reason). This article engages in three distinct tasks in making this argument. First, I provide a critical overview of Hegel’s conception of free will – namely, how he envisages the movement from the abstract, incomplete, and undeveloped will, to that of a concrete, complete, and developed one through the unfolding of Reason. Second, I introduce the contemporary debate regarding nomological determinism between libertarians and skeptics, of both the in compatibilist and compatibilist variety. I suggest that, in the context of the modern free will debate, Hegel is best categorized as a compatibilist as he both accepts causal determinism but remains committed to the notion that certain persons can act in concert with their own volition. Third, I argue that Hegel’s compatibilist understanding of free will has important and problematic consequences for legal theory, particularly normative jurisprudence. Compatibilism, generally, and Hegel’s particular version, substantiates the idea of basic moral desert which poses a serious threat to the possibility of moral progress from a retributive justice system to a consequentialist one.","PeriodicalId":37705,"journal":{"name":"Symposion","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hegel’s Treatment of the Free Will Problem\",\"authors\":\"R. Donoghue\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/symposion20218210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"G.W.F. Hegel offers a thorough, complex, and unique theory of free will in the Philosophy of Right. In what follows, I argue that Hegel’s conceptualization of free will makes the mistake of collapsing the possibility of organic freedom (the ability to act freely of causal determination) into the potential for moral freedom (the capacity to act in accordance with Reason). This article engages in three distinct tasks in making this argument. First, I provide a critical overview of Hegel’s conception of free will – namely, how he envisages the movement from the abstract, incomplete, and undeveloped will, to that of a concrete, complete, and developed one through the unfolding of Reason. Second, I introduce the contemporary debate regarding nomological determinism between libertarians and skeptics, of both the in compatibilist and compatibilist variety. I suggest that, in the context of the modern free will debate, Hegel is best categorized as a compatibilist as he both accepts causal determinism but remains committed to the notion that certain persons can act in concert with their own volition. Third, I argue that Hegel’s compatibilist understanding of free will has important and problematic consequences for legal theory, particularly normative jurisprudence. Compatibilism, generally, and Hegel’s particular version, substantiates the idea of basic moral desert which poses a serious threat to the possibility of moral progress from a retributive justice system to a consequentialist one.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Symposion\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Symposion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/symposion20218210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Symposion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/symposion20218210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

黑格尔在《法哲学》中提出了一个全面、复杂、独特的自由意志理论。在接下来的内容中,我认为黑格尔的自由意志概念化犯了一个错误,即把有机自由的可能性(根据因果决定自由行动的能力)瓦解为道德自由的潜力(根据理性行动的能力)。本文在提出这一论点时,涉及三个不同的任务。首先,我对黑格尔的自由意志概念进行了批判性的概述——也就是说,他是如何通过理性的展开,从抽象的、不完整的和未发展的意志到具体的、完整的和已发展的意志的运动的。其次,我介绍了当代自由意志主义者和怀疑论者之间关于法决定论的争论,其中既有非相容论者,也有相容论者。我认为,在现代自由意志辩论的背景下,黑格尔最好被归类为相容论者,因为他既接受因果决定论,又坚持认为某些人可以按照自己的意志行事。第三,我认为黑格尔对自由意志的相容主义理解对法律理论,特别是规范法学具有重要而有问题的影响。相容主义,以及黑格尔的特殊版本,证实了基本道德应得的观点这对道德进步的可能性构成了严重威胁从报应性司法系统到结果主义的司法系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hegel’s Treatment of the Free Will Problem
G.W.F. Hegel offers a thorough, complex, and unique theory of free will in the Philosophy of Right. In what follows, I argue that Hegel’s conceptualization of free will makes the mistake of collapsing the possibility of organic freedom (the ability to act freely of causal determination) into the potential for moral freedom (the capacity to act in accordance with Reason). This article engages in three distinct tasks in making this argument. First, I provide a critical overview of Hegel’s conception of free will – namely, how he envisages the movement from the abstract, incomplete, and undeveloped will, to that of a concrete, complete, and developed one through the unfolding of Reason. Second, I introduce the contemporary debate regarding nomological determinism between libertarians and skeptics, of both the in compatibilist and compatibilist variety. I suggest that, in the context of the modern free will debate, Hegel is best categorized as a compatibilist as he both accepts causal determinism but remains committed to the notion that certain persons can act in concert with their own volition. Third, I argue that Hegel’s compatibilist understanding of free will has important and problematic consequences for legal theory, particularly normative jurisprudence. Compatibilism, generally, and Hegel’s particular version, substantiates the idea of basic moral desert which poses a serious threat to the possibility of moral progress from a retributive justice system to a consequentialist one.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Symposion
Symposion Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Symposion was published for the first time in 2003, as Symposion – Revistă de științe socio-umane (Symposion – A Journal of Humanities), with the purpose of providing a supportive space for academic communication, dialogue, and debate, both intra and interdisciplinary, for philosophical humanities and social and political sciences. Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences shares essentially the same purpose. Its main aim is to promote and provide open access to peer-reviewed, high quality contributions (articles, discussion notes, review essays or book reviews) in philosophy, other humanities, and social and political sciences connected with philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信