Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

Philosophy, being the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and

existence, has developed through the days. Its earliest history can be traced from Pythagoras,

who was believed to be the first person to coin the word “Philosophy”. With each point in time,

from Pre-Socratic Period up to Contemporary Period, many philosophers rose up to their fields

of expertise with their many theories and beliefs. This paper will focus on three of the famous

philosophers from the Modern Period, namely, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

MODERN PHILOSOPHY

The question of when the Modern Period started and ended is often disputed among

historians. Modern Philosophy is marked by the development of science and art in which the

Catholic church is beginning to lose power in a Europe that is developing intellectually and

emotionally. As a result, the same intellectual spirit that saw the ancient Greeks questioning

mythology and asking deep questions returned. Modern philosophy, thus, consists of a mix of

new approaches to philosophy fueled by science, rejections of religious teachings and, on the

other hand, defenses of religion based on the new evidence. The modern philosophical era also

saw the revival of epistemology as one of its central features, as new forms of science brought

forth the question of whether or not empirical data is a suitable source of knowledge.

The Modern Period discussed various studies of philosophies such as Political

Philosophy and Idealism.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Political Philosophy is the fundamental study of the questions about the state, politics,

justice, liberty and laws. It is an ethical code, applied to a group of people, the set-up of a society

and how one should act within a society. Political Philosophy asks questions like: “What is a

government?”, “Why are they needed?”, “What are the obligations of the government?”, “What

duties do citizens owe a legitimate government?” and many more. Among the Political

Philosophers is Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

“Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”

Rousseau (1712 - 1778) is a Genevan Philosopher whose philosophy made a great

influence on the progress of the Enlightenment throughout Europe, as well as the French

Revolution. His notable works are “The Social Contract” and the “Discourse on Inequality”.

Rousseau described the Social Contract as an understanding between all individuals. This

study was in line with the philosophy of John Locke. However, he believed the contract should

exist as an agreement between a ruler and the people. On the other hand, Rousseau argued that

the contract should exist only between the people themselves. He argued that when all

individuals, within one state, give up their natural liberty, their combined individual wills will

form a General Will. The General Will will then act as the true absolute power, allowing the

people of the state to openly participate in state affairs. Rousseau then concluded that the former

government became secondary, as people in leadership roles were only considered delegates of

the general population. As a result, the General Will would successfully ensure all individuals

had a sense of membership within their state and participated openly within the state’s

interactions.
Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality is one of the strongest critics of modernity ever

written. Rousseau describes the ravages of modernity on human nature and civilization

inequality are nested according to the Genevan thinker. In terms of methodology, Rousseau

traces the journey of humanity from its origin (but outside any religious context), the paints in

his state of nature to better understand how humanity, decadent according to him, got there.

Rousseau distinguishes two types of inequality: natural (or physical) and moral. The natural

inequality stems from differences in age, health, or other physical characteristics. The moral

inequality is established by a convention of men. Rousseau will therefore explore the origin of

this convention. To achieve this, Rousseau uses a thought experiment, the state of nature, which

is therefore not a historical truth.

Rousseau concluded that man is naturally good, but he has been corrupted and perverted

by society. Society may be the “original sin”, but it is in the society that man may find

redemption. He cannot go back to his primitive state, thus he must define himself. Together with

his fellowmen - who all have potentialities for good and bad - they form the moi commun of the

“collective self whose will creates right and justice that supersedes the individual conscience in

matters of public concern.”

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON ROUSSEAU

G.R. No. 171396

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LORENZO TAÑADA III, RONALD LLAMAS, H. HARRY L.

ROQUE, JR., JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, ROGER R. RAYEL, GARY S. MALLARI, ROMEL

REGALADO BAGARES, CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG, Petitioners,

vs.

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF,

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, HON. AVELINO CRUZ II, SECRETARY

OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED

FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LOMIBAO, CHIEF,

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents.

Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

FACTS: These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in

issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5),

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend

that respondent officials of the Government, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve

democratic institutions, are actually trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected

by the Constitution. Hence, such issuances are void for being unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 Doctrines of Several Political Theorists on

the Power of the President in Times of Emergency

RULING: Jean-Jacques Rousseau also assumed the need for temporary suspension of

democratic processes of government in time of emergency. According to him:

The inflexibility of the laws, which prevents them from adopting themselves to

circumstances, may, in certain cases, render them disastrous and make them bring about,

at a time of crisis, the ruin of the State... It is wrong therefore to wish to make political

institutions as strong as to render it impossible to suspend their operation. Even Sparta

allowed its law to lapse... If the peril is of such a kind that the paraphernalia of the laws

are an obstacle to their preservation, the method is to nominate a supreme lawyer, who

shall silence all the laws and suspend for a moment the sovereign authority. In such a

case, there is no doubt about the general will, and it clear that the people’s first intention

is that the State shall not perish.

Rosseau did not fear the abuse of the emergency dictatorship or "supreme magistracy" as

he termed it. For him, it would more likely be cheapened by "indiscreet use." He was unwilling

to rely upon an "appeal to heaven." Instead, he relied upon a tenure of office of prescribed

duration to avoid perpetuation of the dictatorship.

The Court rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence.

However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless

violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII

of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President
Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior

legislation.

G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and

the PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is "necessary and appropriate actions and

measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence." Considering that "acts of terrorism"

have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is

declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IDEALISM

Idealism is the study of metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts

make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any philosophy which argues that the only thing

actually knowable is consciousness (or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be

sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are

mental entities, not physical things (which exist only in the sense that they are perceived).

Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

IMMANUEL KANT

“So act as to treat humanity… as an end withal, never as a means only.”

Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

Kant (1724-1804) is considered the most influential thinker of the Enlightenment era and

one of the greatest Western philosophers of all times. His works, especially those on

epistemology (theory of knowledge), aesthetics and ethics had a profound influence on later

philosophers, including contemporary ones. Besides establishing himself as one of the foremost

Western philosophers, Kant also made an important contribution to science and is considered one

of the most important figures in the development of modern science despite the fact that he was

most interested in philosophy of science and knowledge that science produces. His main

contribution to the rise modern science was its liberation from theology.

The notion of imperative is central to Kant’s philosophy, and particularly Kant’s ethics.

The hypothetical imperatives express the practical necessity of an action as a means to achieve

something you want or might want. They are conditional. They express themselves as: “If I want

to do this, then I have to do that.” They express only that the action is good to accomplish a

particular purpose. It is clear that this has nothing to do with morality. The categorical

imperatives express that action is needed for itself, objectively, with no other purpose. The

categorical imperative is not subject to any special conditions and is therefore still valid whatever

the circumstances.

In Kant, only the categorical imperative is moral. It is the moral law and in fact none

exists even if only one can receive several formulations. The first formulation of the categorical

imperative says: “Always act so that you may also wish that the maxim of your action become a

universal law.” This is to ask every time we act if we can reasonably and without wanting to

contradict that everyone acts the same way. For example, suppose I need money for basic need

and that I borrowed knowing full well that I could never make it, I promise that I will make a

moral that money knowing that if I do not promise we do not give me and yet I need? The

question of the morality of such an act amounts to asking whether it is possible to make a

universal principle of false promise. But if so, whether any promise was false, no one would

believe what he promise and there would be no sense to promise. Consider the false promise as

morality is contradictory.
Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

The Concept of Law is central in Kant ‘s Philosophy. The difference between the moral

law and political law is that the moral law is on self-control and assumes the reversibility / obey.

I control myself. In the State, on the contrary, one who commands is not necessarily the one who

obeys. Which order? This is the political issue. According to Kant, the State is what makes

possible a life in common in accordance with reason. But the practical reason raises its

requirements from the state of nature and the state of nature is not a state for reason.

The State is for Kant a moral being whose essential meaning is to give an ethical

dimension to the various determinations of the activity and human relationships. The law is a

legal and moral law, as such, it is necessary, universal, a priori. It controls the action to be

performed unconditionally as a duty. It is an expression of practical reason in law. As to the

form, the law expresses the sedan just and on the terms the law expresses what is legal, what

goes into the reality of the law. The law also determines the sentence passed by courts, giving the

sentence a character of necessity (it is the law that apply)

The law binds to the stress. There is need for legal compulsion. The law requires the

state: that the law applies to all equally, the law must match for a power of coercion. If the state

of nature everyone has the right to force (and therefore the opposite is contingent, without

reference, allowed), it is necessary to substitute a constraint whose exercise is unified, rationally

organized, which can only be done if the ability to coerce is entrusted to a will that can legislate

universally united to the will of the people is to tell the state. The term which mediates stress is

right and the state. The law can not assert that legal by the legal constraints of the state. But

when the state law requires because it is a legal constraint. The form of the state must be

determined by law legal, which means that the state must comply in its essence, the legal

requirements of practical reason. The State must have a rational form consistent with the concept

of law (this is called a rule of law)

Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

The law thus comes at a time of reason but also the expression of one who commands the

right. Or that controls the right? Where is the sovereign authority which gives the law? In the

tradition of modern natural law, Kant thinks that the law has its origin in the will of the people

considered to be sovereign. “The legislature shall enure to the unified will of the people” For

Kant, this view was rationalized. We need a unified commitment is such that as long as it

submits to the law it gives itself. It is thought the concept of general will in Rousseau. Kant, like

Rousseau, the general will can not be unjust because it rules only on the universal and would be

unfair to harm herself.

However, there are differences between Kant and Rousseau: Kant builds his idea of

sovereignty from the idea of his moral (related law / freedom) when Rousseau the general will is

justified by its analogy with the natural order (good nature theme).

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL

“The question ‘To whom … belongs the power of making a constitution?’ is the same as ‘Who

has to make the Spirit of a Nation?’ …. It is the indwelling spirit and the history of the Nation -

which is that Spirit’s history - by which constitutions have been made and are made.”
Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

Hegel (1770-1831) is one of the greatest systematic thinkers in the history of Western

philosophy. He is sometimes called as the prophet of revolutionary change. In addition to

epitomizing German idealist philosophy, Hegel boldly claimed that his own system of

philosophy represented an historical culmination of all previous philosophical thought. The core

of Hegel’s social and political thought are the concepts of freedom, reason, self-consciousness,

and recognition, which can only be grasped with by ones social and historical embodiment of

such. His notable work is “The Philosophy of Right”.

The Philosophy of Right (as it is usually called) begins with a discussion of the concept

of the free will and argues that the free will can only realize itself in the complicated social

context of property rights and relations, contracts, moral commitments, family life, the economy,

the legal system, and the polity. A person is not truly free, in other words, unless he is a

participant in all of these different aspects of the life of the state.

The Hegelian Dialectic believes that development is the movement integrating the

“Thesis” (the basic situation of concept) with its “Antithesis” (contradiction) to form a

“Synthesis” (the resolution of the contradiction). The progress of all events and concepts

including that of law, moves in such.

An application of the Hegelian Dialectic in the Philippine context is this. Under the 1935

Constitution, which was patterned after the U.S. Constitution, the President’s term of office was

for 4 years, extendible by another 4 years if re-elected. This is called the ‘two-term limit,’ after

which the President would be constitutionally barred from running for the highest office of the

land.

In Hegelian terms that was the thesis, or starting point. On September 21, 1972, Martial

law was declared and the 1935 Constitution was abolished, including the limit to the term of

office of the President. As It happened then President Marcos extended his term and became

president of the country for 21 years (1965-1988), the original limit having been abolished. This
Rousseau - Kant - Hegel

legal extension became the antithesis or contradiction to the basic limitation set under the 1935

law. After the “people power” in 1986 ousting then President Marcos, a Constitutional

Convention was held to draft the new Philippine Constitution which was ratified on February 2,

1987. Under the new Charter, a 6-year term for the President without re-election is mandated.

This new law that look back to the lessons of the past is the synthesis. For now, the term of office

of the President is a consolidation of what ought to be learned from the years last: a term of

office longer than the thesis but shorter, and with adequate protection installed, than the

antithesis. As history is on a continual march through evolution, the synthesis will someday

become the new thesis, subjected to a new antithesis, and forming a ‘higher’ synthesis.