Some Observations on Natural Law

Article Sidebar

PDF Full text
Published: Dec 1, 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.38.2013.543
Keywords:
natural law, Aquinas, is-ought distinction

Main Article Content

Michael Pakaluk
Ave Maria University

Abstract

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.

Article Details

How to Cite
“Some Observations on Natural Law”. 2013. Diametros, no. 38 (December): 153-75. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.38.2013.543.
Issue
No. 38 (2013)
Section
Special topic – THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF THOMAS AQUINAS AND CONTEMPORARY PRACTICAL ETHICS

By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Author Biography

Michael Pakaluk, Ave Maria University

Michael Pakaluk, PhD
Ave Maria University
Department of Philosophy
Ave Maria, FL 34142 USA
e-mail: mpakaluk@gmail.com

How to Cite

“Some Observations on Natural Law”. 2013. Diametros, no. 38 (December): 153-75. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.38.2013.543.
Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

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.