Hegel

Hegel isn't super popular, but his theory is starting to become more prevalent again. Hegel has probably the hardest and most confusing source text, so do not try to read that. Similar to Kant, his theory is deontological, so the morality of the action is not reliant on the consequences. Below is a brief description of how many Hegelian frameworks are justified in LD debate.

Framework Background: The Metaethic Metaethics can be thought of as a filtering mechanism for different ethical frameworks. Multiple frameworks that fall under a metaethic share a common starting point or premise. For example, utilitarianism might fall under the metaethic of naturalism which asserts that ethics must stem from natural facts/material conditions of the universe, or essentially, what we see/experience. Some frameworks can fall under multiple metaethics.

A major distinction that can be made to organize/categorize frameworks is the internalism and externalism distinction. Internalism: Moral facts are internally derived. We get facts based on what we think. Internist versions of util might care about what people’s internal desires are. A Hegelian would view internalist theories are insufficient due to some problems, mainly that it is difficult to provide an objective good that is "good" for everyone; positive obligations are thus hard to derive. Internal obligations are also non-verifiable; you don’t have access to other peoples’ internal thoughts. Externalism: ethics and ethical obligations are derived from the exteernal world. A Hegelian would still see externalist theories as problematic, because it seems difficult as to how people know how we can verify the existence of the natural world around us (e.g. we could all be living under a simulation or dreaming. these arguments seem farftched now but if you think about them, they do hold some weight. How do we know everyone experiences the world in the same way? What if our sense oare lying to us? Think opitical illusions or how real a dream feels. The conclusion Hegel and many other philosophers come to is that of constitutivism. This is the idea that ethics should be based on constitutive or intrinsic features of a subject. Philosophers ask themselves, "what defines a subject?". This metaethic resolves the problems of internalism because we are able to create objective obligations. Since all subjects are based on the same thing or share a similar characteristic, we are able to create moral obligations for all of them, as we all share agency. This also resolves the problems of externalism, because our constitutive subjectivity provides us a way of knowing moral facts. Essentially, constitutivism establishes the fact that all constitutive frameworks have a way of defining subjectivity.

Syllogism Once we have established the metaethic, the Hegelian syllogism follows as such. There are two main ways of articulating/reading the syllogism in debate.

1 - Gobsch (a Hegelian author) This is a play on practical reason. Gobsch writes that practical reason is constitutive, but people relate to practical reasoning in different ways. It’s impossible to have a pure concept of practical reason that is not impacted by the way the subject experiences the world (we interpret universal things differently). Gobsch criticizes Kant for asserting that one can abstract your intention from everything else.

2 - Wood (another author) This section will delve deeper into Wood's reading of Hegel. Wood's reading of Hegel is based around the idea of appropriation. He defines subjectivity through appropriation, how self-conception that shapes the way you act as a subject. E.g. if I want to take a drink of water, I pick up a glass and drink from it. Therefore, all ends that I pursue and actions I take are related to my self-conception. Thus, the only defining feature of subjectivity is our ability to appropriate. There are two types of appropriation. Appropriating a material object (not moral agent) is ethically different than appropriating another person (independent agent) Appropriating another agent is interacting with someone in a unique way.

Next, the only way we can recognize ourselves as agents is through social interactions with others. This concept of mutual recognition of moral agents is how we verify our agency. E.g. if you were born on an isolated island with no other agents, Hegel would say that you would not realize youu are an agent. Only by interacting with another agent, recognizing they have agency, will you therefore realize you yourself are also an agent.