The World of Law in Philosophical Reflection

On the Law of Philosophy’s Engagement with Rights

Philosophy and law... It is often said that the ancient Greeks bequeathed philosophy to humanity while the Romans contributed the concept of law. Although other cultures, such as those of China and India, possessed their own philosophies and legal systems prior to their contact with Europeans, there remains a kernel of truth in this assertion. Indeed, philosophy, as the earliest form of systematic rational knowledge, originated with the Greeks, while the first rationally ordered legal system emerged in Rome. While today the profound connections between these two ancient forms of human thought may not be immediately apparent to all, such ties existed in the past and continue to do so, despite the present-day specialization and division of intellectual endeavors among philosophers and legal scholars. To justify the inclusion of this topic within the framework of our course to those who might express skepticism about the relevance of philosophy to the professional domain of lawyers, it is necessary to reiterate the uniqueness of philosophy and its role. Philosophy constitutes a system of worldview knowledge that rationally substantiates fundamental positions regarding the human relationship to the world. It illuminates the connection between humanity and the cosmos through the lens of human interests and needs, perceiving the individual as a holistic entity in the unity of emotional and rational, spiritual and corporeal, psychological and physiological, social and individual dimensions. Another aspect of philosophy is defined by its relationships with other sciences. It is the historical fate of philosophy to bear a sort of curse of “original sin”: having separated from philosophy, various sciences retain an initial inoculation against it. At the methodological foundation, both philosophy and individual sciences converge in their interests. This convergence is evident in the development of specific branches of philosophical knowledge, such as the philosophy of physics, the philosophy of technology, the philosophy of language, the philosophy of history, and so forth. Among these is the philosophy of law. The very phrase “philosophy of law” may carry a dual meaning depending on what is understood by “law”: whether as a reflection of social reality or as the science of that reality. In the former instance, the philosophy of law will employ philosophical methods to investigate legal reality, reflecting on law as a social phenomenon. In the latter case, where “law” (in its abbreviated form) is understood as a specific field of science, namely jurisprudence, philosophy will concentrate on the methodological issues of legal science. The contemporary state of the philosophy of law encompasses both aspects, although certain philosophical-legal doctrines may lean more towards one side than the other.

What, then, is the relationship between philosophy and jurisprudence concerning law? This presents a significant problem. To some extent, philosophical ideas are represented in the so-called general part of legal statutes. In this section, key concepts are defined concerning what is addressed in the specific part. It is evident that not all fundamental legal terms invariably undergo a phase of preliminary philosophical filtration; often, there is no pressing need for this. Yet, there are times when the interests of philosophy and law may align in the essence and definition of fundamental concepts. For instance, the prevalent view in domestic jurisprudence holds that the most general object of crimes is social relations. However, the ambiguity of the concept of social relations within legal science itself—having previously borrowed it from the overly ideological “historical materialism” of the Soviet era—creates room for conjecture, allowing for the elevation of any criminal act to a level where it ostensibly poses a direct threat to the foundations of society. At the same time, recalling the previously mentioned philosophical level of analysis concerning social relations reveals that the meaning of this category bears very little relation to the direct practice of a lawyer, as neither directly nor indirectly can any of their “clients” eliminate the objective foundations of those “continental” relations that determine the essence of sociality. These may even be entirely unknown to the legislator. In their practice, the ordinary legal practitioner does not operate at such an abstract level. They deal with issues pertaining to the legal protection of property, life, and health, as well as the safeguarding of political systems, yet they may sometimes suffer from a malady of perception in instances of quite specific crimes that they interpret in universal terms, as if they constitute an affront to social relations in general. It seems that the criminal acts of individuals do not pose a threat to social relations; however, as an abstract possibility, such a framing of the issue might acquire meaning only when the number of unlawful acts reaches a critical mass, when defiance encompasses the absolute majority of the population. Even then, it would imply a total alteration of the very foundations of social relations, rendering the function of many articles of criminal law devoid of basis and meaning. Such an abstract possibility may be envisaged in the constitution, which places upon the state the obligation to preserve the principles of sociality, that is, fundamental social relations, but only to the extent that individuals are capable of objectively reflecting these principles within their consciousness.

Thus, delving into the nature of the phenomena underpinning fundamental legal concepts inevitably leads to philosophy. Ultimately, one might assert that the philosophy of law represents an endeavor of philosophical reflection concerning law and legal theory. The purpose of the philosophy of law can be seen as clarifying (illuminating the meanings of) the concepts within legal theory through philosophical or general cultural categories.

The grounds for the kinship between philosophy and law can also be traced in the historical realm. Such foundations lie within the traditions of practical philosophy. Since antiquity, the actions of individuals have been regarded as subjects of philosophy, denoting the sphere where events are shaped by human will. Traditionally, all that is determined by human volition has been included within praxis (practice) and has been the focus of practical philosophy. This encompasses morality, law, politics, and economic activities. Morality and law have long been within the purview of philosophers and shared the common designation of customs. Philosophers sought the roots of natural law within customs, turning to them in cases requiring critiques of positive law. The philosophical-legal discourse was long explored under concepts such as “natural justice,” “natural law,” and “metaphysics of customs,” and only in the late 18th century did the term “philosophy of law” begin to be employed. As we can see, there is nothing unjustifiable in philosophy’s claims to engage with any facet of reality, including law, as each dimension pertains to the world of humans, experienced emotionally and interpreted intellectually.