reality over against it； and for it； therefore； negative。 By the act it thus becomes Guilt。 For the
deed is its doing； and doing is its inmost nature。 And the guilt acquires also the meaning of Crime；
for as simple ethical consciousness it has turned to and conformed itself to the one law； but turned
away from the other and thus violates the latter by its deed。
Guilt is not an external indifferent entity （Wesen） with the double meaning； that the deed； as
actualiv manifested to the light of day； may be an action of the guilty self； or may not be so； as if
with the doing of； it there could be connected something external and accidental that did not
belong to it； from which point of view； therefore； the action would be innocent。 Rather the act is
itself this diremption； this affirming itself for itself； and establishing over against this an。 alien
external reality。 That such a reality exists is due to the deed itself； and is the outcome of it。 Hence；
innocence is an attribute merely of the want of action （Nicht…thun）； a state like the mere being of a
stone； and one which is not even true of a child。
Looking at the content； however； the ethical act contains the element of wrongdoing； because it
does not cancel and transcend the natural allotment of the two laws to the two sexes； but rather；
being an undivided attitude towards the law； keeps within the sphere of natural immediacy； and；
qua acting； turns this one…sidedness into guilt； by merely laying hold of one side of the essential
reality and taking up a negative relation towards the other； i。e。 violating it。 Where； in the general
ethical life； guilt and crime； deeds and actions； come in； will be more definitely brought out later。
Meantime； so much is at once clear； that it is not this particular individual who acts and becomes
guilty。 For he； qua this particular self； is merely a shadowy unreality； he is merely qua universal
self； and individuality is purely the formal aspect of doing anything at all； while its content is the
laws and customs； which； for the individual； are； specifically； the laws and customs of his class or
station。 He is the substance qua genus； which by its determinateness becomes； no doubt； a
species； but the specific form remains at the same time the generic universal。 Self…consciousness
within the life of a nation descends from the universal only down as far as specific particularity； but
not as far as the single individuality； which sets up an exclusive self； establishes in its action a reality
negative to itself。 On the contrary； the action of that self…consciousness rests on secure confidence
in the whole； into which there enters nothing alien or foreign； neither fear nor hostility。
2。 Opposite Characteristics of Ethical Action
Ethical self…consciousness now comes to find in its deed the full explicit meaning of concrete real
action as much when it followed divine law as when it followed human。 The law manifest to it is； in
the essential reality； bound up with its opposite； the essential reality is the unity of both； but the
deed has merely carried out one as against the other。 But being bound up with this other in the
inner reality； the fulfilment of the one calls forth the other； in the shape of something which； having
been violated and now become hostile； demands revenge — an attitude which the deed has made
it take up。 In the case of action； only one phase of the decision is in general in evidence。 The
decision； however； is inherently something negative； which plants an 〃other〃 in opposition to it；
something foreign to the decision； which is clear knowledge。 Actual reality； therefore； keeps
concealed within itself this other aspect alien to clear knowledge； and does not show itself to
consciousness as it fully and truly is （an und für sich）。 In the story of ？dipus the son does not see
his own father in the person of the man who has insulted him and whom be strikes to death； nor his
mother in the queen whom he makes his wife。 In this way a hidden power shunning the light of
day； waylays the ethical self…consciousness； a power which bursts forth only after the deed is
done； and seizes the doer in the act。 For the completed deed is the removal of the opposition
between the knowing self and the reality over against it。 The ethical consciousness cannot disclaim
the crime and its guilt。 The deed consists in setting in motion what was unmoved； and in bringing
out what in the first instance lay shut up as a mere possibility； and thereby linking on the
unconscious to the conscious； the non…existent to the existent。 In this truth； therefore； the deed
comes to the light； — it is something in which a conscious element is bound up with what is
unconscious； what is peculiarly one's own with what is alien and external： — it is an essential reality
divided in sunder； whose other aspect consciousness experiences and also finds to be its own
aspect； but as a power violated by its doing； and roused to hostility against it。
It may well be that the right； which kept itself in reserve； is not in its peculiar form present to the
consciousness of the doer； but is merely implicit； present in the subjective inward guilt of the
decision and the action。 But the ethical consciousness is more complete； its guilt purer； if it knows
beforehand the law and the ower which it opposes； if it takes them to be sheer violence and
wrong； to be a contingency in the ethical life； and wittingly； like Antigone； con mits the crime。 The
deed when accomplished transforms its point of view； the very performance of it eo ipso
expresses that what is ethical has to be actual； for the realization of the purpose is the very
purpose of acting。 Acting expresses precisely the unity of reality and the substance； it expresses
the fact that actuality is not an accident for the essential element； but that； in union with that
element； it is given to no right which is not true right。 On account of this actuality and on account of
its deed ethical consciousness must acknowledge its opposite as its own actuality； it must
acknowledge its guilt。
Because of our sufferings we acknowledge we have erred。（2）
To acknowledge this is expressly to indicate that the severance between ethical purpose and
actuality has been clone away； it means the return to the ethical frame of mind； which knows that
nothing counts but right。 Thereby； however； the agent surrenders his character and the reality of his
self； and has utterly collapsed。 His being lies in belonging to his ethical law； as his substance； in
acknowledging the opposite law； however； he has ceased to find his substance in this law； and
instead of reality this has become an unreality； a mere scntiment； a frame of mind。 The substance
no doubt appears as the 〃pathic〃 element（3） in the individuality； and the individuality appears as the
factor which animates the substance； and hence stands above it。
But the substance is a 〃pathic〃 element which is at the same time his character； the ethical
individuality is directly and inherently one with this its universal； exists in it alone； and is incapable
of surviving the destruction which this ethical power suffers at the hands of its opposite。
This individuality； however； has all the same the certainty that that individuality； whose 〃pathic〃
element is this opposite power ＇the opposed law＇； suffers no more harm than it has inflicted。 The
opposition of the ethical powers to one another； and the process of the individualities setting up
these powers in life and action； have reached their true end only in so far as both sides undergo the
same destruction。 For neither of the powers has any advantage over the other that it should be a
more essential moment of the substance common to both。 The fact of their being equally and to the
same degree essential； and subsisting independently beside each other； means their having no
separate self； in the act they have a self…nature； but a different self； — which contradicts the unity of
the self and cancels their claim to independent right； and thus brings about their necessary
destruction。 Character too； in part； looking at its 〃pathic〃 element； the substance； belongs to one
alone； in part； when we look at the aspect of knowledge； the one character like the other is
divided into a conscious element and an unconscious： and since each itself calls forth this
opposition； and the want of knowledge is by the act also its doing； each falls into the guilt which
consumes it。 The victory of one power and its character； and the defeat of the other side； would
thus be merely the part and the incomplete work； which steadily advances till the equilibrium
between the two is attained。 It is in the equal subjection of both sides that absolute right is first
accomplished； and the ethical substance； as the negative force devouring both sides； in other
words omnipotent and righteous Destiny； makes its appearance。
If both powers are taken according to their specific content and its individualization； we have the
scene presented of a contest between them as individuated。 On its formal side； this is the struggle
of the ethical order and of self…consciousness with unconscious nature and a contingency due to
this nature。 The latter has a right as against the former； because this is only objective spirit； merely
in immediate unity with its substance。 On the side of content； the struggle is the rupture of divine
and human law。 The youth goes forth from the unconscious life of the family and becomes the
individuality of the community ＇i。e。 Ruler＇。 But that he still shares the natural life from which he has
torn himself away is seen in the fact that he emerges there — from only to find his claim affected by
the contingency that there are two brothers（4） who with equal right take possession of the
community；（5） the inequality due to the one having been born earlier and the other later； an
inequality which is a natural difference； has no importance for them when they enter the ethical life
of society。 But government； as the single soul； the self of the national spirit； does not admit of a
duality of individuality； and in contrast to the ethical necessity of this unity； nature appears a