Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):181-196 (2002)
|Abstract||In this paper I argue that differences between the ‘new moral science’ of the seventeenth century and scholastic natural law theory originated primarily from the skeptical challenge the former had to face. Pufendorf’s project of a scientia practica universalis is the paramount expression of an anti-skeptical moral science, a ‘science’ that is both explanatory and normative, but also anti-dogmatic insofar as it tries to base its laws on those basic phenomena of human life which, supposedly, are immune to skeptical doubt. The main scholastic legacy to the new moral science is the dichotomy between an ‘intellectualist’ and a ‘voluntarist’ view of natural law (or between lex immanens and lex imposita). Voluntarism lies at the basis of both theological views, such as Calvinism, and political views, such as those of Hobbes and Locke. The need to counterbalance the undesirable implications of extreme voluntarism may account for much of the developments in ethics and politics during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.Scottish natural jurisprudence, which tried to find a middle way between skepticism and extreme voluntarism, is less secular and more empirical than received wisdom admits. There emerged, as one of its ‘accidental’ outcomes, a systematic, self-contained and empirical economic theory from the search for an empirically based normative theory of social life. The basic assumption of such a theory, namely, the notion of societal laws as embedded in trans-individual mechanisms, derives from the voluntarist view of natural law as ‘imposed’ law.Later discussions of social issues in terms of ‘economic’ and ‘ethical’ reasons originated partly from a misreading ofthe Scottish natural jurisprudential framework of economic theory. Starting with this reconstruction, I try to shed some light on recent discussions about the role of ethics in economics|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Buckle (1991). Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume. Oxford University Press.
Jonathan Crowe (2012). Natural Law Beyond Finnis. Jurisprudence 2 (2):293-308.
Daniel Chernilo (2013). The Natural Law Foundations of Modern Social Theory: A Quest for Universalism. Cambridge University Press.
Owen J. Anderson (2012). The Natural Moral Law: The Good After Modernity. Cambridge University Press.
Hans Kelsen (1957/2000). What is Justice?: Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science: Collected Essays. Lawbook Exchange.
Samuel Pufendorf (1991). On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law. Cambridge University Press.
Ellen Frankel, Fred Dycus Miller & Jeffrey Paul (eds.) (2000). Natural Law and Modern Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
S. J. (2000). Trial by Slogan: Natural Law and Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex. Law and Philosophy 19 (4):433-449.
Janet E. Smith (2001). Reclaiming or Rewriting the Tradition? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (4):585-595.
Jeffrey J. Maciejewski (2003). Can Natural Law Defend Advertising? Journal of Mass Media Ethics 18 (2):111 – 122.
Henrik Syse (2007). Natural Law, Religion, and Rights: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Natural Law and Natural Rights, with Special Emphasis on the Teachings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. St. Augustine's Press.
David S. Oderberg & T. D. J. Chappell (eds.) (2004). Human Values: New Essays on Ethics and Natural Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
C. Fred Alford (2010). Narrative, Nature, and the Natural Law: From Aquinas to International Human Rights. Palgrave Macmillan.
J. Budziszewski (2011). The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction. Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads1 ( #291,771 of 722,864 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,864 )
How can I increase my downloads?