In this episode I explore the concept of contracts and their limitations as a form of social interaction, drawing on Hegel's philosophy. I suggest that while contracts are a way of recognizing each other's legal personhood, they represent a limited form of freedom and are an abstraction from the full reality of individual wills. Contracts serve as a common ground for two parties but do not encompass the entirety of their wills, leading to a form of commonality rather than true universality.

Hegel critiques the idea of contracts as the foundation for marriage and the state, arguing that these institutions belong to a higher realm of social ethics and morality, beyond the arbitrariness of contracts. (Against Kant and Locke.)

I also discuss the transition from contract to injustice, where the limitations of contracts become apparent. Injustice arises when individual wills conflict with the collective will established by the contract, leading to potential crime and the breakdown of the contract's commonality.

I conclude by suggesting that morality is necessary to reconcile the particular with the universal, moving beyond the abstract law of contracts to a more complete understanding of legal relationships. This moral perspective seeks to align the individual will with the common good, aiming for a unity that contracts alone cannot achieve.

The next contribution will delve deeper into this moral and ethical transition.