— 443 the nostrils of a living creature, tie it by the leg, it will begin to tear to free itself, to achieve freedom. It will be outraged by us, its selfish sense of justice will be trampled upon. Move from this simplest type of violation of freedom to more complex ones, from this mechanical and physiological humiliation to broader relationships, now personal, now political, now economic (class versus class) dependence, then, finally, to the response to the most insignificant changes in state structures, and you can easily see how this individual ferment grows into a complex and sensitive feeling of the individual, suitable as a regulator for the most complex environment - from organic to inorganic, in Spencer's terminology, inclusive. —The egoistic sense of justice partly turns into an altruistic one under the influence of one who cultivates effective social motives and sankshas. Among them, the leitmotif is the fear of retribution, which takes on the most diverse - from grossly physical to ideal - forms, from the oethistic sense of justice in the so-called. 5 - up to and including respect for public opinion - which happens, of course, already at the most developed levels of the social structure. Here it reaches a powerful, almost irresistible, in the most sensitive individuals, impulse, forcing individuals to defend the political interests of their fellow citizens 1).
Turning to the law: “each individual must be subject to the consequences arising from its nature and activity,” Spencer, on the basis of it, points out that the positive aspect of the idea of justice is the recognition of the principle of inequality, since the nature of each individual is individual. The second principle of the law, which requires the same restrictions on activity for everyone, contains the principle of equality.
The history of positive law reveals a number of fluctuations between these principles. and a gradual inclination - the modern era - towards equality, carried out by legislative order until the understanding of this. equality by adherents of socialism 1).
The history of the development of philosophical, legal and political ideas, according to Spencer, reveals the same. individual egalitarian tendency. If at the beginning of development - (ancient statism, middle-class theocratism)) - inequality prevailed, now there is a desire for absolute equality: This. extremes. Defenders of polar opinions are too dogmatic and rashonalistic. Whereas experience and deductive research agree with what is noted in. feelings8 and the idea of justice are two moments, two principles, not one. And therefore, the correct formulation and solution of the question, according to the author of synthetic philosophy, does not consist in arbitrarily eliminating or replacing one principle with another, but in finding between them the correct coordination, corresponding to objective reality, more correctly pointing in the direction of a gradual change in this relationship. The solution to the problem posed by Spencer is connected with the main issue of social life. Will changes in the social structure occur towards the dominance of society over the individual, or vice versa? Spencer defines the desired relationship between both moments of justice with his conciliatory formula: everyone is given freedom to act at their own discretion, provided they do not violate the same freedom of others. Of course, in this formula the understanding of freedom as freedom of force is excluded; on the contrary, it is on the verge of violence. Evidence of its truth is given asloric and inductive.
t) Founding sociologists $ 369 СХХУ ch.). 2) Founded by socialists ch. XXSH $847.
SYN
her a =
tive. The idea of equality is limited by the religious and moral experiences of peoples. We also find it in the ideal of natural law, supported even by such empiricist jurists as Azzp, not to mention the great philosophers of law. This undeniable authority of the law ruling in the animal and human kingdoms is always implied. This law, having become clear in the minds of people, takes the form of the law of equal freedom. If every means of knowledge possible for the human mind convinces us of the validity of this law, then should we not recognize its authority and superiority in the world? If we draw conclusions from the law of equal freedom, equally limited for each individual, and draw each of the conclusions inductively, we will see that these conclusions are in full accordance with both the prevailing ethical concepts and the norms of positive law.