In the state in the hope that

In the same way, in Hegel’s philosophy, the individual is free only if he identifies himself. Consciously with the laws of the state. Because the state for Hegel is infallible and because it can never be wrong therefore, if there is ever a conflict between individual and the state, the individual is always wrong and the state is always right. It is also interesting to compare Hegel’s position with the position of Hobbes on this (relation between the individual and the state).

Hegel maintains that individuals have no right to resist the state or disobey the commands of the state. To take an analogy just as parts of human body cannot revolt against the body in the same way the individuals cannot revolt against the state. Given this position of Hegel we can say that the Hegelian state is like the Hobbesian Leviathan in new garb.

We Will Write a Custom Essay about In the state in the hope that
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In fact, in Hegel the position of state vis-a-vis the individual is more exalted than in Hobbes at least grants to the individual the right to revolt against the state if the state fails to protect his life.

The individuals in the Hobbesian social contract agreed to submit themselves to the state in the hope that it (state) will ensure safety of their life and property. If the state (or the sovereign) is unable to do so then the individuals have the inherent right to refuse to obey the sovereign.

However, Hegel does not grant any such right to the individual. This is so because the state for Hegel is the embodiment of reason and individual are the product of the state. In same sense the relationship between, while in Hobbes it remains a mechanical relationship based on contract.