Dialectics of Goals and Means: Philosophical Foundations of the Research on the Efficiency of Legal Regulation

Abstract

Introduction. The article presents an analysis of the dialectics of goals and means as the most important philosophical categories that are actively used in the general theory of law and other legal sciences. The idea is substantiated that the effectiveness of the legal regulation of social relations, as well as the optimization of law-making, law-realization and law-interpretation processes, is based on a comprehensive analysis of such philosophical categories as "goal" and "means", which is explained by the very essence of legal regulation, which is traditionally understood as purposeful influence on public relations carried out with the help of legal means. Particular attention is focused on the nature and characteristics of goals and means, their relationship with the needs and interests of participants in public relations, as well as on those aspects of their interdependence that predetermine the specifics of legal regulation.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study was made up of both general scientific and particular scientific methods of cognition. The fundamental method was the dialectical method, which made it possible to analyze the nonlinear nature of the interaction of goals and means as interrelated categories, as well as to explore the contradictions of the coexisting interests of the individual, society and the state, which predetermine the legal influence on social relations. The research also actively used the formal-logical method, the method of system-structural analysis, the synthesis of social and legal phenomena, the comparative legal method, the functional-analytical and system oriented  approaches.Research results. As a result of the analysis, it was revealed that the issue of the interaction between goals and means is relevant for any of the spheres of public life, and the key issue in this regard is not so much the variant of the “goal-means” correlation that we think is right to prefer in particular situation, as much as the fact that the means is not only an "appendage" of the goal. Thus, the means used to achieve a particular goal can change the goal itself, just as a particular goal can be viewed as a means to achieve a goal of a higher level. In addition to the above, the means used to achieve the goal can lead to a result that the subject of social relations rejects.Discussion and conclusion. The conclusion is substantiated that the achievement of the goal is a certain result, however, it is also necessary to evaluate the result of achieving the goal itself, because it can be extremely unsatisfactory for the subject. It is argued that the dialectics of goals and means largely explains the nature of social relations as a dynamic, complex, self-developing and open system, which is distinguished by incompleteness, non-linearity and alternative  development.