Sittlichkeit (German:[ˈzɪtlɪçkaɪt]ⓘ) is the concept of "ethical life" or "ethical order" furthered by German philosopherGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It was first presented in his workPhenomenology of Spirit (1807) to refer to "ethical behavior grounded incustom andtradition and developed through habit and imitation in accordance with the objective laws of the community"[1][2] and it was further developed in his workElements of the Philosophy of Right (1820).
InElements of the Philosophy of Right, Hegel introduces thesphere of abstract right[3] (Recht),[4] as thefirst of the threespheres of right. It is marked by the concept of personality[5] and the actions of the individuals.[6] This sphere constitutes whatIsaiah Berlin would callnegative freedom, which is to say, freedom ascertained through the denial of outside impetus.[7][8] This is the freedom traditionally represented byclassical liberalism.[9]
Thesecond sphere constitutesKantian morality, and is therefore called thesphere of morality (Moralität).[10] This sphere constitutes whatIsaiah Berlin would callpositive freedom, which is to say,moral autonomy.[7] However, Hegel criticizes the deployment of Kantian morality in society for being insufficient. He explains this deficiency through philosophical critique of pathologies such as loneliness, depression and agony.
Thethird sphere, thesphere of ethical life[3] (Sittlichkeit),[11][12][13] is marked by family life,civil society, and the State.[14][15] This idea is traditionally associated withconservatism.[16]
To properly understand the movement from the two first spheres to the last, one must understand thatSittlichkeit's normativity transcends the individual—whileMoralität may be rational and reflective,[1] it is also individualistic. The third sphere is an attempt at describing a limited conception of the person through an appeal to the greater institutional context of the community[17] and an attempt at bridging individual subjective feelings and the concept of general rights.
Later German thinkers developed the idea in various directions such as the liberalCarl Theodor Welcker, the conservativeFriedrich Julius Stahl, and the socialistWilhelm Weitling. Welcker connected the idea to constitutional liberties. Stahl related it to a hierarchical godly order. However, Weitling rejected it as oppressive and believed that socialists must work to destroy it.[18] Conservative philosopherRoger Scruton called it a highly original and metaphysically fascinating version of the conservative answer to liberalism.[19]
