Some Observations on Natural Law

• Authors: Michael Pakaluk
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper offers some observations with a view to correcting ostensible misunderstandings of the so-called New Natural Law (“NNL”) theory, concluding that the NNL theory is unworkable and unsustainable, even on its own terms. It is argued that the NNL theory is based on fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of necessity in Aquinas; the nature of propositions which are “known in themselves” (per se nota); and the nature of fundamental practical reasoning. It is argued that, where the NNL theory differs from that of Aquinas, the latter provides a better framework for the development of accounts of natural law today.

Keywords

EN

natural law; Aquinas; is-ought distinction

• Publisher: Instytut Filozofii - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
• Journal: Diametros
• Year: 2013
• Issue: 38
• Pages: 153-175

Contributors

author

Michael Pakaluk

• Ave Maria University

References

• Aristotle, De Anima, trans. J.A. Smith, available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html.
• Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html.
• Finnis John, Is and Ought in Aquinas, [in:] Reason in Action: Collected Essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011.
• Finnis John, Natural Law and Natural Rights, Second Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2011.
• George Robert, In Defense of Natural Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1999.
• George Robert, Recent Criticisms of Natural Law Theory, [in:] In Defense of Natural Law, Clarendon Press, 1999.
• Hooker Richard, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, available at http://anglicanhistory.org/hooker/.
• Lichacz Piotr, OP, Did Aquinas Justify the Transition from “Is” to “Ought”?, Instytut Tomistyczny, Warszawa 2010.
• Quine Williard Van Orman, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review (60) 1951.
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, available at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth0000.html.
• Veatch Henry, “Natural Law and the ‘Is’ – ‘Ought’ Question,” Catholic Lawyer (26) 1981.

Identifiers

DOI

10.13153/diam.38.2013.543