12 January 2015 (Sarah Beattie)
REVIEW. In the course, we will be
asking the question of whether or not natural law theory is
one we should adopt. Natural law theory is not standard
curriculum in the English-speaking world. Why is that? Perhaps
one explanation could be a challenge posed by David Hume, who
proposed that simply because things have a certain nature
doesn’t mean they ought to be a certain way. He argues for a
gap between what “is” and what “ought” to be the case. Natural
law theory moves from descriptive claims to prescriptive
claims, from “is” to “ought”. Hume challenged this by saying
that simply because a thing has a certain tendency doesn’t
mean they ought to act in a certain way.
One possible challenge in our study
of natural law would be that it draws on a tradition that
might not be familiar to us. We are influenced by empiricists
– if you cannot test or prove empirically the existence of
God, then it is unreasonable to believe he exists. Natural law
theory is often connected with the Stoic tradition, Thomas
Aquinas, Maritain. Another challenge is the language used is
something we may not be entirely comfortable with. Sometimes
concepts are not easily or well communicated. Maritain himself
says this.
LAW | What are the kinds of
law? What do we mean when we talk about law?
1.
Law
a.
Science
i. Observe
ii. Generalize
b.
Prescriptive Human
Behaviour
i. Lawgiver
ii. Legislation
The
types of law we discussed were (a) laws of science, and (b)
Prescriptive Human Behaviour. Science is descriptive and
empirical. We observe a certain phenomenon, and then we
generalize. Generalizations admit of exceptions. We, ideally,
would like laws to be universal, to cover all cases. From
scientific observation, we move to generalization, and then to
a law. We begin with observation/experience, and then it is
verified by some principle. We accept that a true scientific
principle would be universally true.
In
terms of (b) prescriptive human behaviour, we have
legislation: laws that are promulgated by parliament or town
councils. Ideally, the aim of these laws is to help the
community to work better. This requires a law-giver, one or
two people who care and aim at a common good. We hope that he
is trying in some way to make the place better. Ideally, the
lawgiver would have care for the community, and the common
good.
Could parliament pass secret laws against
terrorism? How would we know to obey it?
Laws should be known to everyone,
that is, they should be public/promulgated.
Here, not a concern of observation. A law is a
principle, a command that tells you what you should do. Laws
usually apply to everyone. Law is not supposed to apply to
only one person or group. If it did, it would be
discriminatory, so law should be universal.
What kinds of law are there?
Legislation à This includes laws like driving on the right
side of the road, stopping at red lights. They are arbitrary
in some sense, but aimed at a common good.
International à Not all countries have the same legislation. You
might say, “You do your thing, I’ll do mine,” but what do you
do in relations between countries? Just War Theory. Who are the lawgivers in
an international setting? Is reason? Is there a rational
understanding that nations should deal with each other in a
certain sort of way?
National à each has own lawgivers, laws.
Human Rights à In some countries, women do not have the vote,
they cannot drive, they cannot own property. Some people think
that regardless of what country you live in, all individuals
should have certain rights.
Customary à e.g. Aboriginal law in Canada.
The 10 Commandments à God presumably has care for all humanity. He is
rational, he promulgates these commandments.
In each of these cases, we’re not
talking about observation. They are ‘commandments’. The
legislature has exercised its control, and the laws are
prescriptive.
Thomas Aquinas: these laws must be
rational, for the common good, made by a lawgiver who has care
for community, and promulgated.
Will or Rationality?
1.
Lawgiver
a.
Will
i. The Golden Rule: “He who has the gold makes the
rules”
ii. Should the law depend on just the will of the
lawgiver?
b.
Rationality/intelligence
In the Euthyphro, Socrates
asks whether one follows the law because the gods insist, or
because they are good? Aquinas would take issue with the law
being decided merely by the will of the lawgiver. There has to
be some rationality to it.
The Natural Law claims to be both
descriptive and prescriptive. It tells us the way things are.
It is based on observation, but is also prescriptive,
requiring some lawgiver.
Three ways of Knowing
Observation
Reason
Insight
(sometimes)
Maritain would say that all of
these kinds of knowledge are conceptual. Matters of conceptual
knowledge, reason, reflection – all these are related to
scientific knowledge. Philosophy can be a science. Trying to
create a system – a body of knowledge. In natural sciences,
ethics, we use these ways of knowing. Ethics involves
concepts, reasons. Someone could know all about ethics, but
not be ethical. That is because ethics is a science, an
intellectual activity.
Summary:
We
discussed an introduction to Natural law theories. The majority
of the discussion regarded what knowledge is and how we know we
know something. The discussion of knowledge included key points
including the requirement for knowledge to have justification,
that knowledge must be true, and that knowledge must be believed
in. If one is unable to explain what they know, then they do not
really know. The topic of analogous knowledge was discussed,
where analogous knowledge is knowledge of one object/ concept/
idea that can be similar to knowledge about another
object/concept/ idea. This knowledge can be and is different,
but not radically so. The
class finished with an explanation of knowledge by/ through
connaturality/ inclination/ congeniality, which is knowledge
that is known but indemonstrable, and involves mystical
experience. Pages
12 and 16 of the text were referenced.
Natural law theories
-not always directly related
to Maritain
How do we know things? What
is knowledge?
-“analogical knowledge”
What is it to know
something?
-normally, if know >
believe
-knowledge is something
that’s true, something believed in, and can be justified in some
way
> does the justification
need to be available?
-if something I believe can
be false, then can’t really know.
-universally true,
contingently true; some things thought were true, turn out to be
false, then change knowledge
-if I have scientific
knowledge/ ethical knowledge, has to be true; make claim should
be justified true believe.
How do I know? à justification
> observation
> reason
> insight (aha! moment)
-know > can’t be mistaken
about it
Different kinds of knowledge
-know that
>contingent
>necessary
knowing how
-can know some ‘that’s’ if
know ‘how’
-know ‘that’ à object of know
>i.e. knowledge in
science, aesthetics, ect.
>goes back to analogical
knowledge
Pg. 12 text
“Analogous character of the
concept of knowledge”
-analogous: something that’s
similar
> not exactly the same,
but not radically different.
>methods of justification
are different and can change
>>requires adequate
justification
-knowledge can range in
subject matter, although it may not exactly be the same.
>the way I know is
different, but similar
-we can be humble about
knowledge in theories/ ideas (ethics, art, philosophy), but
don’t have to be skeptical.
knowledge as:
-the product (that)
-the process (how)
-conceptual
-rational
-coherent (know one thing,
can’t know contradictory)
circular;
-observation
-reason
-insight (not always true/
fallible)
Knowledge by/ through
connaturality/ inclination/ congeniality
-know, like knowledge by
inclination, but not
> principle of
non-contradiction applies to all knowledge, not just
philosophical issues (broad/ basic principle)
>ethics, if possible, has
first principle(s)
>can know immediately
(true, believe them, and justified, but we don’t have
evidence)
>grasp, indemonstrable,
but know them.
>> know but can’t
prove, not rational grasp.
-not intuition (which
normally isn’t of general statements)
>not gut feeling à this is knowledge of general principles
mystical experience
-not conceptual, can’t
understand fully
-participation/ united with
God
-lose a sense of your
individuality
> united with things as
separate from me
-grows into objective means
of knowing
-“to understand who I am,
have to know God”
poetic knowledge/ artistic
knowledge
-relation to what the
artists knows of art through the artist’s expression in art
-knows something, but
different in how they communicate it (vs. philosophy, history,
etc.)
PRACTICAL
REASON.
What is it, and what does it do?
Practical
reason is distinct from speculative or theoretical reason (Kant
makes this distinction). Speculative reason concerns the essence
or causes of things. You want to arrive at certain conclusions
that are ideally demonstrative. For example, what is human
nature? For the sake of speculative reason you would want
deductive proof of this. But, speculative reason is detached
from the day-to-day; maybe you can't do anything with
speculative reason. Often the case that it does not have any
practical applicability - it is knowing for the sake of knowing.
On
the other hand, practical reason is reason applied to action in
the world (praxis). How ought
I to act? What rules or guidelines for living should I follow?
All
this being said, these two types of reason (theoretical vs.
practical) are constituted in terms of the same intellectual
capacity - that is, they are both, strictly speaking, types of reason.
CONNATURAL
KNOWLEDGE
/ KNOWLEDGE BY INCLINATION.
Two
types of knowledge are reflective knowledge (science), which
concerns itself with concepts, reasoning, etc., and unreflective
knowledge (insight), which is immediate (i.e. you "get it").
Note that insight can also be reflective.
There
is a third type of knowledge for Maritain and others: knowledge
by inclination, which has a role to play in mystical knowledge,
poetic knowledge, and moral experience. Crucial for Maritain's
theory of natural law.
Connatural
knowledge
is inherently difficult to communicate; words often fail. The
knower is united to the object known (e.g. the artist/viewer and
the artwork; the religious person and God).
The
moral dimension to connatural knowledge is especially important
for our purposes. Everyone is a moral expert in their own way -
humans act freely. To really be aware of one's freedom is a
striking event; you are one
with that moral experience.
Morality
has a scientific dimension to it (that is, a conceptual or
reflective dimension). Moral philosophy is a kind of moral
science. Moral knowledge,
however, is more than moral philosophy. People that aren't
reflective of morality can still be morally aware or possess an
awareness of general moral principles. Our knowledge of these
general principles is immediate. The most basic moral precept is
to do good and avoid evil.
Connatural
knowledge
is a kind of knowledge that you find in your nature but not in a
conceptual way. You come to realize this without the use of
reason. In some sense it is culturally inherited; you can know
of it before you can express it. It is not innate knowledge. How
you know something and how you come to know it are different
than what is true.
You
get the ought by just
getting it. At a certain point (or over time) you realize the
precept "do good and avoid evil," among others. But, this
awareness of first principles: is it infallibly accurate? If
it's knowledge, then it must be true, and if it's a first
principle, then it should be infallible.
This
disposition or habit to know first principles of morality is
called SYNDERESIS.
January 21 – Ryan
Langevin
Pg. 27-29 – Maritain gives
us a proof for natural law as an ontological theory. The
conclusion is: there is a natural law for all human beings that
is a moral law. What is his argument structure for reaching this
conclusion?
Maritain talks about two
types of reason:
à Practical
-
aims to
do something
-
ethics
is an example
-
tells me
how to act in the world
à Speculative
-
detached
from daily life
-
concerned
with understanding how far knowledge extends
-
concerned
with causality
-
may not
have a direct practical application
We can also distinguish
between different types of knowledge:
à Reflective
-
Scientific
bodies of knowledge
à Unreflective
-
insight
-
inclination
(ex: mystical, poetic, and moral knowledge by inclination)
-
a type
of knowledge that one can have but not necessarily know how to
explain it logically or discursively
-
non-conceptual
-
non-
linear
Maritain explains moral
knowledge by inclination with the term connatural knowledge. We
can act freely, which is a striking event. And there is
something in the moral act/experience which is unique. However,
there is a difference between practical moral knowledge and
moral science. One may be well versed in moral science and still
not act morally.
The natural law can be
explained in both and ontological and epistemological manner. An
example of the epistemological component of natural law is
synderesis – the process by which we come to list principles of
it. The next section is concerned with the ontological
component.
Ontological Aspects of
Natural Law
Maritain has to show how
there can be a diversity of thought/knowledge and still be a
publicly accessible natural law (public accessibility is one of
the necessary conditions for both knowledge and law).
Pg. 27-29
Man determines his own ends
and it is up to him to put himself in tune with those ends which
are natural to his nature (the ends demanded by his nature).
In order to know who someone
is, you must know who they are in relation to others. So when we
talk about nature/essence, we are not just talking about a
specific person’s essence, but we have to talk about an essence
common to all people. It is only through this recognition of
similarity that we can see individuality and distinctiveness.
Maritain argues that to find
out what our nature is, we have to find out the ends that are
common to all humans and toward which we are naturally directed
or inclined. All things – natural and artificial – have ends.
Free, rational beings (such as ourselves) have the choice to
either be in tune with these ends or resist them.
So what are these common
ends (or at least goals)? Possible elements of human nature
include: to live, have relationships, procreate, develop our
talents, seek knowledge, seek stability, security, spiritual
meaning etc.
Maritain says that by
discovering these ends, we understand that there is a
determinate human nature, an order, a disposition, which we
should obey. We should obey it because it is evident in nature
that when something follows its nature, it flourishes. When an
acorn follows its nature to become an oak tree, it flourishes.
Because we have ends, if we follow them, we will flourish. And
although there is a natural law in all beings, only humans can
really have moral laws. It becomes an ethical issue with us
because of our rational nature and free will.
Where does the natural law
get its force of obligation? Perhaps from Nature?
Given that all things have a
nature and ends toward which they are naturally inclined, there
is no “ought” unless you have a rational, free agent. The force
behind it comes from its foundation in the divine law/divine
reason.
Laws aim at the common good
that is a command that we must do. What’s natural is what is
descriptive of our function, a normality of functioning, and we
have to seek out our ends. We find the nature of things by
studying it over a period of time. What is the nature of humans?
We are self-conscious, social, goal oriented, ability to act
towards the good. All these features are only present to us in
in particular moment, a simple example being sleeping. Like the
history of men, we developed through a beginning to an end. Our
natural law developed over time. If you don’t have freedom than
natural law can’t be moral. To be considered as moral beings, we
have to have the ability to choose.
For Maritain, the natural
law is natural because it is known naturally. We can know things
in different ways such as observation or rationally, which is
knowledge and the scientific side or conceptual ideas we have.
We can construct science that’s rational, where we can tell what
the cause is. Insight however is rational and conceptual; we
might not have an explanation of causes. Next we have connatural
knowledge, which is still a legitimate source of knowledge that
we can’t describe; yet science is still a part of this.
Polygamy is an example of
something that is not a concept that we know to be wrong
naturally, yet it might be rational in certain cases. Yet the
idea to not kill can’t be known scientifically or through
insight, but instead we know it connaturally. There’s something
that can’t be rationally articulated why we find the killing of
a child to be immediately repugnant.
We grasp things intuitively;
the natural law is a combination of things. The natural law
includes science, insight and things that are connatural. We
need that connatural knowledge as a foundation to allow insight
and science to even develop. We’re not born with this connatural
knowledge, but we have the capacity to come to see it. It’s not
the same thing as conscience. Conscience is not really basic to
natural law. For us we look commonly at conscience as a feeling
or intuition, that’s particular and not general. For Maritain
conscience is a type of knowing, but to know something we have
to know the rules. Conscience is something that is rational and
intellectual, and it involves the assistance of a good will, but
we must do what our conscience says. Yet the conscience is not
part of the natural law.
The first precept of natural
law is to do good and avoid evil. Our science and our insights
differ, but we all have the same connatural knowledge but it may
be different at different times.
28 January 2015 - Sarah
Beattie
Monday: The Rectitude of the
Will (in the new text). How
can I put the natural law into practice? How does reason
function in morality? How does the will function in morality?
Ryan’s Presentation
The law is an ordinance of
reason. The Natural Law is not grounded in human reason (it is
not arbitrary). Following Aquinas, Maritain talks about the
Eternal Law.
Eternal Law
God is the ultimate creator.
The eternal law encompasses the whole universe. Governed by
divine reason. God
is the supreme legislator.
Maritain talks about the
analogous character of the law. The eternal law is promulgated
in the divine intellect. We cannot know it, but we participate
in it. Every creature participates in the eternal law. Rational
creatures participate in divine reason in a special way. In this
way we are one with God and the divine. The eternal law is the
first foundation of the Natural Law. We know our natural
inclination by participation in the divine reason.
Our inclination to act in
certain way, towards certain ends is how we participate in it.
Eternal Law is not based on our reason. We participate in it.
Law of Nations
The Law of Nations is an
intermediary between the Natural Law and the Positive Law.
Reason is not the author of the Law of Nations.
The distinction between the
Natural Law and the Law of Nations is not in content, but the
means through which the law comes to be known. It is connected
with the first principle of the natural law. The starting point
and content is still the natural law, but the content is not
necessarily known by inclination alone. Laws in keeping with the
natural law, but found through the common reason. These laws are
not just legal positivism – they are not arbitrary and are
accessible to the common consciousness. This is not law which
has to be promulgated judicially.
Positive Law
The Positive Law is created
by human reason. Positive law is particular, contingent, and
arbitrary in a sense. The author of the positive law is human
reason, not divine reason. Once the positive laws are
instituted, it is evil to disobey them insofar as they conform
to the first precept of the natural law.
The Natural Law has left to
the positive law its completion. The positive law derives its
power and obligation from the natural law. An unjust law cannot
be obligatory because it must conform to the Natural Law and the
Eternal Law.
Challenges:
o
Maritain
wanted to have a solely philosophical natural law system, but
his system still includes God.
o
Knowledge
by inclination is an integral part of his account, but this
notion is vague and inconsistent with what we usually consider
knowledge.
Death penalty. Why do some
societies have the death penalty? Are they not morally aware
enough? Sometimes certain positive laws can vary depending on
the state of society. You might say that to have a law allowing
the death penalty there has to be a rational justification of it
(i.e. it cannot be based on vengeance. To justify the death
penalty by a revenge theory would be problematic). On a theory
of self-defence, perhaps the death penalty is viable.
Positive Law. Is it immoral
to run a red light? The positive laws are said to be morally
relevant once they are created. It is illegal to speed … is it
immoral to speed? One could say yes, because you could cause
harm to others. What if your wife is ill, and you speed to
hospital. Is this morally wrong? One could argue that it is not
immoral because you are trying to achieve a kind of higher good:
presentation of life.
The positive law is designed
to make the natural law concrete and effective. For safety
reasons, we have a speed limit. This law has as its object
safety. But if your wife dies because you drive too slow, that
the positive law fails. The natural law is superior. The
positive law has ethical weight, but when the positive law
doesn’t do what the natural law wants to do, it’s a statute but
doesn’t have the character of an ethically justifiable law.
Therefore, it should not be ethically binding.
Eternal Law. Why is it wrong
to kill? Because God commands it? If God commanded adultery,
would it be okay? A voluntarist would say yes. If God wills it,
you must do it. However, the divine reason is not arbitrary.
There is a rationality to what God does. Reason tells you the
natural law. Not human reason, because human reason is fallible.
We participate in the
eternal law as products of the divine reason. Because we have
the capacity to reason, we’re a lot closer to the sort of being
that created us. We reflect the eternal law in our capacity to
think.
Is this theological?
What God is Maritain describing? Not the Catholic, Protestant,
or Muslim God? He is God as eternal reason. If God’s existence
can be proven by reason alone, then it is part of philosophy.
Maritain says you need to prove God’s existence for the natural
law to be authoritative. We ought to act in accord with the
natural law because it is reasonable. Not simply because God
wills it, but because I recognize that I am the product of the
reason that gives me my nature, tells me what to do. If there
were no God, my only source for ethics would be me. Without the
connection to the eternal reason, it is potentially arbitrary.
Maritain doesn’t think his eternal law argument is theological,
because the God he is talking about is eternal reason. He can be
proven philosophically.
February 2nd, 2015
Monday’s
class focused on two main questions: ‘What is the relationship
between the four kinds of law?’ And, ‘What does one do about an
unjust law?’
The main points for the first question, which followed the
information from Ryan’s presentation, was that if a law violates
the common good, if it is irrational, and/or the one in charge
is not legitimate, then it is an unjust law.
Following this discussion, the main points regarding the second
question included the explanation that if someone is informed,
knowledgeable, and understands the issue as clear and concise,
and still think is a bad thing to do, then obliged not to obey
the law.
Continuing topics from Ryan’s discussion…
Relationship of the 4 kinds of law
-positive law has to, at
least, be consistent with Natural Law (NL) (Maritain)
>an unjust law is not a law
-external law: divine
reason, natural law: ought to act, law of nations: interact as
social beings, positive law: creation of human reason that is in
line with other laws, but extends. How?
> Ex. Tax dollars are
used to bomb Iraq. Why is this unjust? And why is this law not a
law? Perhaps because not reasonable.
>>one condition is it
must be a command of reason; if irrational, then not a command
of reason.
>>not promoting a
common good; what is in people’s true interest; all beings of
the same nature.
>>aims at a particular
good instead; violates common good.
>>parliament=authoritative,
paying taxes to support government= reasonable, but using tax
dollars to bomb people in a foreign country is not for the
common good.
-power does not equal
authority.
-if violates common good, if irrational, and one
in charge is not legitimate, then it is an unjust law
What to do about an unjust
law?
-Resolution in part: if someone is informed,
knowledgeable, understands the issue as clear and concise, and
still think is a bad thing to do, then obliged not to obey the
law.
-people can disagree, so who
determines whether it is an unjust law? Opinions can differ
-we all make mistakes and
can sometimes and sometimes ought to be punished.
-sometimes there is not a
difference of opinion, where issue does not seem to follow NL
and most people agree.
>Nuremburg Trials à people who follows immoral laws, but shouldn’t
have
>don’t follow
indisputably corrupt law, one that is inconsistent with the
natural law; by obeying unjust law, still guilty of a moral
offense.
>If know law is immoral,
Maritain would say obey it.
-ask self: am I acting
ethically by just going along with the law?
-some actions= actions of
duty (must), some actions just good to do
>to jump on grandeur à duty, or go “beyond”
>> supererogatory
-if utilitarian, no
supererogatory acts, if giving as much s can, still just duty
-Kant: deontologist, duty to
give to poor, develop talents, to do duty is to give to poor,
develop talents to do duty is to give anything positive to
charity, but to give half income= beyond duty
-what is natural law theory
in this context? Does it allow actions beyond duty, or if good,
than duty, or does it just ell you what not to do?
>how does NC help me when
figuring out how to act?
Ch. 3 of Course Pack
How does thical reasoning
work?
Inclinations and Reason
Reason
(Pg. 37-39) –sometimes
reason works in “quasi biological way”
>conscious &
preconscious actions
-sometimes act in a way that
is not thought out/ conceived
-pre-conscious element,
rational aspect
>instinct for
pro-creation; not a bad thing, but different than other animal’s
drive to procreate
>>don’t have instinct
to marry and have kids, but not really a full rational thought
through process
>>not planned, but
inclination, informed
Inclinations
-natural rightness/
rectitude
-good thing to have family/
raise children
>not a bad thing if don’t
do it
-people can give up what
naturally inclined to do for other drives
-more sophisticated than
basic instinct
(Pg. 38) –ethical reason à practical
-rational process through
sorting how ethically ought to act
ex. Trying to figure out if
we will volunteer for war
>inclination to help, but
widowed mother= dependant and worryful; should stay how and take
care of her, or should serve country?
-ex. Fall in love, but don’t
have any money (lol BBA in leadership degree), want to peruse
love, but financial dead end; do I peruse this love if can’t
support serve country?
-competing obligations, how
to sort situation?
-next class, try to figure
out steps in diagram
>sketch out 4,5, or 6
steps of how someone gets conclusion (NLà decision)
>gives idea of how
practical reasoning works
February 4th -
RECTITUDE
OF THE WILL, continued.
For
Maritain, anything a human does is colored by reason; even our
basic inclinations. He talks about the Freudian view of
inclinations (drives, passions, etc.) but modifies it: these
drives are colored by reason. There's something distinct about
human drives, in that they contain inclinations of reason. Here
Maritain is talking about MORAL PSYCHOLOGY. The end of
deliberation is conscience, and an act of conscience stemming
from a judgment of conscience. Also known as a
"speculativo-practico judgment"; you don't just know it, you do
it.
Aquinas'
view of truth is of a relation between the mind and things,
otherwise known as a correspondence theory of truth. The goal is
to get your mind to fit with what reality is. If my mind
accurately reflects what is real, then can be absolutely certain
of your knowledge. But, can I have certitude in ethics? Not
mathematical certitude; instead, it's more like an inclination.
Certainty here is not mathematical, apodictic certainty (i.e.,
objective knowledge) as much as it is certainty as a psychology
attitude, or personal conviction. In the former case you cannot
be mistaken, whereas in the latter case you can be mistaken.
"Certainty," then, does not mean the same thing as knowledge.
I
can do something in good conscience and be wrong. I have my own
personal biases, beliefs, and opinions that color my conscience
- therefore, there's always a chance that we'll miss out on
moral truth, as opposed to mathematical truth. The will, by
itself, is blind.
MORAL
JUDGMENT. How does it work?
1.
Consult the Natural Law. "Do good and avoid evil." Good starting
place, but doesn't help too much. Merely saying "I ought to do
the good thing here, and avoid the bad." Still dealing with
abstract principles: judgment of conscience in a separated
state. Separated
from doing something at a concrete instance.
[As
we move down these steps, we move from abstract to practical]
2.
Examine the particulars. This could mean a lot of things:
personal, social particulars, etc. Judgments of conscience in a
detailed state. We're still at the level of reason, rules, and
the "ought."
3.
In the practical world, it is conformity to the right appetite
rather than things. Goodness, for example, is not an object of
perception. You can't find the truth about goodness or moral
rightness; this is a question of will, and not mathematical
knowledge. A hint at "right will" is virtue, which is a habit or
tendency to act a certain way. Good habits are virtues, and bad
habits are vices. The point here is to be good rather than to do
good, or "being" as opposed to "doing." Being good is analogous
to having a disposition to be virtuous. Indeed, virtue is self
contained. To be virtuous is to know the mean (for example,
courage, which is the mean between foolish daring and
cowardice). You need reason to give you knowledge of the mean,
and therefore of virtue. Questions such as "What are my
tendencies?", "What are the tendencies of others?", and "What is
the standard of virtue" help to arrive at knowledge of the mean.
This is all to say that the will must be influenced by reason.
The right will is the will that tends to the true ends of human
existence. What would promote the true ends of my human being?
[Moving here from the outside world to the inside world.]
[Note also that virtuous people can still make mistakes.]
Maritain would say that there's always an objectively right
response to a any ethical situation. Relative to you, but not
subjective. There is a duty relative to your capacities or
abilities.
4. What should I do, even though I am fallible? Every ethical
action is a risk. This is what a virtuous person would do, and
therefore I have to freely choose to do it (obligation to act on
the judgment, but you can still not do it). When I freely choose
to do the acct, it is an act of conscience. The more I do this,
the more I improve my disposition (virtue).
Big
points:
1) that will (habit) needs to be informed by reason, and
2) that there is an underlying element of virtue to natural law
theory; simply knowing doesn't make me good.
What is Maritain worried about with other
natural law theories?
Maritain’s version of
natural law is Thomistic, as opposed to an empiricist or
rationalist view. The Thomistic view holds the following tenets:
-
Nature
-
Experience
-
Transcendent
(empiricist do not think transcendence is possible)
-
Natural
law a basic right, which is extended by positive law
Empiricists
-
No
natural law because they do not believe there is anything
inherent to human nature. Empiricists such as Hobbes have a
version of ‘natural law,’ but this really turns out to be a form
of positive law that has no value without a sovereign.
-
Social
contracts are the basis for law
-
Political
society is arbitrary and does not need to exist
-
Knowledge
through inclination is impossible
The Thomistic view holds
that knowledge through inclination provides our normality of
functioning and universal essence. Empiricists take issue with
the idea of a universal essence and normal mode of functioning.
For an empiricist, one can only examine a particular situation;
there is no universal understanding of the way humans are or
ought to be. There are no universal laws in physics or morality.
Nature is just what we happen to see.
Cultural Relativity
-
Empiricists
argue that people are simply different in different places –
this manifests in different cultural values, practices, customs
etc..
-
Natural
law for empiricists just a way to get what you want
-
People
make up the natural law based on their own desires
Thomistic Response
-
Empiricism
is impoverished as a theory and worldview
-
Order,
reason, and nature are absent from empiricism
-
Empiricists
want to use the same vocabulary as a natural law theory, but
once the theory is carefully examined, it becomes clear that
they are using these words arbitrarily – order, reason, law,
nature all have no real meaning
What’s freedom to an
empiricist?
-
Perfect
freedom would equate to something described as license
-
License
is not the same as liberty
-
Law
provides liberty
-
Maritain
argues that if empiricists want to be consistent, there cannot
be any liberty
Thomas and Maritain want to
argue that we need a norm to guide our laws and nature gives us
that norm. Reason is a very important component to this theory.
For an empiricist, reason is at best the ability to calculate
what you want. Laws are there to make people play well together.
Liberty needs laws or it degenerates into license (which is
essentially the state of nature). Reason for Maritain is a key
tool that aids in our ability to carry out the natural law.
Maritain
If we give up on reason, nature etc., then we cannot have a
substantive view of freedom, value, or progress. Maritain wants
to believe in the ability of humans to make progress.
Empiricists just view progress as a relative thing that simply
cannot be judged since we are unable to actually experience the
past. Empiricists think that the ability to fulfill desires
contributes to a better standard of living in society. Maritain
argue that situations in the past can be judged from a modern
standpoint and ethical issues can be evaluated and improved
upon. To sum up, empiricists view history as ‘one damn thing
after another’ and society as relativistic human construct
designed around our fears and desires. On the other side of this
debate, Maritain believes that this view lacks substantive
content and that there is an objective moral criteria with which
society can be judged.
Last class we looked at
natural law used by other theorists such as empiricists. One problem with the
rationalist and empiricist notion of law is that its concept of
law is weak; it doesn’t have a sanction or morality to it. After
Aquinas things went downhill, which evolved into a rationalist
approach to natural law. More or less around the same time the
empiricist view arose. Maritain doesn’t think empiricism has a
strong idea of nature, reason and the natural law.
The
rationalist tradition was the source of inspiration for the
French revolution. The French revolutionaries who established
the French republic had issues with traditions due to very
little being based on reason. They wanted to go back to a
rational method and reinvent everything. When it came to law
there was no formal code of law, there were rules and customs
and the king decided much. Law was therefore looked at
rationally, the Code Civil, for example, would explain the
relations between people in law. Reason was this tool that could
enter into reality and construct principles to apply to society.
For
the empiricist, reason is just a way to achieve your appetite or
desire, but it didn’t tell you what was right or wrong. For the
rationalists, the senses were unreliable, our desires fluctuate
and change and we need reason to control these desires. Reason
is the only direct access to truth, and from deduction we can
achieve ideals. The biggest problem for reason was tradition,
and political, religious and legal traditions can’t be
rationally justified, therefore needs to be eliminated. Reason
for the rationalist isn’t a divine reason because God is
unknowable. The standard becomes human reason, and mistakes in
reason are mainly due to traditions. Reason has to uncover what
already exists in reality. Reason wants to go into the core of
nature and find better ways to understand and control nature,
and is to be understood conceptually.
For
the rationalist, the natural law is known by all of us, waiting
to be discovered, but we’re impeded by our upbringing, etc.
Natural law is written in our hearts, if we use our reason we
will come to find it. This is universal. A diversity of positive
laws is bad, for example there actually is only one correct way
to drive on the road. The positive law should be deduced by the
natural law. If we let human reason unimpeded do its work, we
could create the perfect order on earth.
There’s a conceptual
understanding of nature for the rationalist, reason is almost
mathematical. There’s no learning of natural law, we just have
to rid ourselves of our prejudices to let it free. In a funny
way this results in no moral progress.
Maritain thinks empiricism
is conservative in that there’s no particular need to change
things, you just need laws to protect us from hurting each
other, or its pessimistic/realist that people can’t improve
their very self. The rationalist is optimistic; if we can get to
the truth of things then we are good, yet this is also
conservative in that it looks for one right model.
Thomism has a progressive
element as well as conservative. The Thomist says human reason
is important, but it relies on a divine reason. The rationalist
sees human reason as the standard. Thomism talks about knowing
things in a non-conceptual way, while the rationalist would
disagree with this notion. Faith for Aquinas is reasonable,
while a rationalist would believe this to be unreasonable. The
Thomist talks about the importance of reason, while the
rationalist pushes reason to its limit. Rationalism for Maritain
has a narrow concept of reason and nature, and leaves no room
for diversity and freedom. For an empiricist there is no
freedom, while the rationalist would say there’s an ideal of how
to do things and what we ought to do according to what is purely
rational, which excludes freedom. Empiricist and rationalist
approaches are not moral systems, it’s not just that Maritain
disagrees with them, but if they are correct then we don’t have
freedom and therefore do not have morality, which makes for a
non-ethical system.
2 March 2015 - Dominic Hughes
CHAPTERS 5 & 6: PRECEPTS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE
NATURAL LAW; TAKING STOCK
We have talked about the law (that law is a command
of an authority that aims at the care of the community), as well
as types of law (divine, natural, common, positive); then we
talked about the general meaning of the natural law. In what way
is the natural law “natural?” In what way is it a law?
The end or purpose of a thing: not only what a
thing can do, but what it is designed to do. What are human
beings designed to do? What is the normality of our functioning?
If you do not know what “nature” means, then there is no point
in talking about the natural law.
Natural law is known naturally (gnoseological or
epistemological dimension of the natural law). We can know
things through science, but we have knowledge in other ways – we
can know through reason, observation, insight, etc. The natural
law is not necessarily known by reason. It is instead known
connaturally. Connaturality is not intuition, but like intuition
in the sense that it is indirect, non-conceptual knowledge. What
distinguishes it from intuition is that intuition is of
particulars, where natural law is more general or guiding. In
the moral sphere there is a kind of intuitive knowledge.
“Do good and avoid evil.” How do we know what
‘good’ and ‘evil’ are?
We need reasoned and connatural knowledge for
morality to work.
What makes the natural law moral? We have the
capacity to go along with or reject the natural law. If we have
no free will, then we cannot be ethical. What does the natural
law have to do with other kinds of law?
Positive law has to be reasonable; positive law has
to be an ethical law. Positive law is informed by the natural
law, and the natural law is informed by the eternal law. How do
we know that there is an eternal law?
March 4 – Ryan Langevin
Primary question: What
Happens when the positive law is inconsistent with the natural
law?
Ex. Abortion:
Natural law: abortion is
wrong because it is immoral to kill human beings and a fetus is
a human being.
Positive law: abortion is
legal in Canada.
Maritain: we obey the law
not because the sovereign commands us to do something or not to
do something, but because the positive law commanded by the
sovereign is an extension of the natural law. Maritain proposes
the following distinction:
Statute
-
Full
force of the government lies behind a statute
-
Strictly
speaking, statutes are not laws
-
No
ethical authority attached to statute if it does not conform to
natural law
Law
-
Moral
authority
-
Validity
from eternal law or eternal reason
-
Not made
by humans but “extended” by human or positive law
Problem: What would happen
to society if everyone broke the law whenever they disagreed
with it on moral grounds?
P.36 of textbook: If keeping
the social fabric of society intact means following a few
immoral laws, then we should follow the law. There is a
secondary moral obligation to keep society together; it would be
chaos if everyone broke laws which they disagreed with.
Nazi law: the statutes were
passed by the government in Nazi Germany and these statutes
followed the correct formal structure or procedure. The laws
were thus followed by German judges who argued that their job
was not to question the law on its moral basis, but to enforce
the laws passed by the legislature. However, the laws in
question were beyond moral reproach, which should have been
blatantly obvious to the learned judges acting on behalf of the
government. The fabric of German society would not have broken
down if they refused to enforce laws which ordered the killing
of innocent people. This was the argument used by the Allies
during the Nuremburg trials; the judges should have realized
that these laws were not valid despite the fact that the
procedural requirements had been met. The formal or procedure
requirements are only part of the picture. The judges failed to
evaluate the laws based on their content or subject matter and
thus failed to act morally.
There seems to be some
tension in Maritain’s work in regards to first principles and
dealing with situations in which positive laws conflict with
the natural law:
P.21 (small natural law
book): natural law deals with only those principles which are
known immediately through inclination.
P.33 (textbook): natural law
is not a rational set of rules and regulations. When you use
reason to articulate the principles, you get the law of nations
and the positive law.
Problem: the natural law is
not conceptual or worked out rationally on one hand, and on the
other hand, Maritain says that it is worked out, but the
precepts are not. We know that the natural law has precepts or
principles, but there are also things that follow from those.
Maritain’s interpretation of Aquinas is that he says two
different things about this. Maritain wants to resolve this
apparent tension and provide a way of understanding the natural
law and its precepts. To do this he makes the following
distinction:
-
Epistemological: how we come to know the precepts of the natural
law
-
Ontological:
how the precepts are applied to
humans and their objective/purpose
Why? Because how do I decide
what to do when precepts conflict? For example, the patriarchs
of ancient Israel had many wives, but polygamy is against the
natural law. Does this mean that the great patriarchs of ancient
Israel were immoral? On one hand you could say that they were
simply going along with the accepted cultural practices of the
day. But Maritain does not want to accept cultural practices as
an excuse to circumvent the natural law. Therefore, we need a
way of prioritizing these conflicting principles. For example,
what if I need to steal a loaf of bread from someone who has
extra in order to preserve my life? Maritain would say that
preserving life is more important than the general rule, ‘do not
steal.’ Preserving life is a higher priority than not stealing.
Maritain Breaks the precepts
down in the following way:
1st Precepts
-
Connaturally
known
-
Not
really a worked out ethical precept
-
Everyone
has it within them naturally to act in accordance with these
-
Ex:
sacred life recognition – i.e., yelling “watch out!!” when
someone is about to walk in front of a bus
Secondary Precepts in a
Broad Sense
-
Generally
connatural
-
A
concretion but still not reasoned or worked out completely
-
Still
universally available
-
Ex:
preserve your life, avoid incest, return what you borrowed
Secondary in a Strict
Sense
-
At this
point reason kicks in
-
Reason
would allow you to realize that sometimes in order to preserve
your own life in the face of mortal danger, you may need to kill
your attacker
-
The
injunction to preserve my life might allow me to steal some food
-
There
are conceptual rules with possible conceptual exceptions
There’s also another way to
distinguish between precepts:
1. Being (human nature) –
ontology
-
human
beings are “rational animals”
-
There
are some things that we share with the animal kingdom such as a
desire for sexual relations
-
What
separates us from animals is our innate desire for knowledge
-
Ex: we
desire to know what a just society would look like
2. Ends of actions
-
We can
distinguish between ‘actions’ which have ends, and ‘acts’ which
are involuntary
-
Ex: an
action would be waving my hand with a desired end; an act would
be an involuntary biological function like my heartbeat
-
Some
ends are primary and some are secondary
-
A side
effect from a prescription drug is an example of a secondary end
-
In
marriage, having children would be the primary end and love
would be the secondary end (for Maritain)
March 11th,
2015 - Madison Burton
Dr. Sweet Introduction:
-Ch. 5 &6 à theoretical understanding of Natural Law (NL)
>knows objections/
challenges; diversity of cultural practices
>>how to explain
differences & create a NL?
>should be able to have a
NL independent of the divine
-Question of history in Ch.
7 à think about what Maritain says, but also what he
would say to objections and challenges
Dominic’s Lecture on Ch.
7:
(numbers correspond with the hand out provided)
-If NL theory is universal,
then must be embedded in human nature (HN)
-if precept of NL is human
flourishing & freedom, then why not always present in
cultures, i.e. slavery or genocide as examples in history
-use NL & problem of
history and development
>how are inclinations
developed in NL?
-Humans are animals of
culture (political/ rational animals)
>morally indebted to
history
2)- at most primitive, human
beings demonstrate a state of ignorance
>done so except first
precept (do good and avoid evil)
>only precept that is
constant throughout history
3) –distinction between NL
and proper and awareness of NL
>gain moral awareness b/c
of more moral action
>precepts discovered
through experience
4)-conforming through
inclinations
>unjust practice
eliminated over time
>in hat way to measure
progress?
5)-desire to purify self/
imperfections
-if now aware, then not
ignorant, so if still choose evil, then blame-worthy.
7)- have not achieved
dearness of NL, then NL partly known = daylight state
-before known = twilight
state
>unclear if end or where
end will be is unclear
>will always continue to
progress into future
8)-structures that remain
ambiguous in chapter
-could have other structures
that could inhibit awareness of the NL
-can at any moment limit
self or be limited to awareness
Questions:
1)-concepts of good and evil
relative to cultural context
-yes, cultural beings, but
culture has history
-concepts of good and evil
do change; can regress in awareness of NL
-different cultures/
civilizations can develop differently
-could have more response to
moral relativist
2)-Maritain unclear; answer
likely know, but we may not know what is limiting because may
not know what they are (in terms of NL)
>can’t know definitively
-natural for structures to
be in place that limits NL à accidental
-ignorance and
blameworthiness
>connatural knowledge
develops/ expands over time as gain more moral experience
>process of trial and
error of suffering
-precepts have developed
over time
>develop from allow moral
injustice à forbid
>with the passage of
time, more moral experience
>>general principles =
rules/ precepts
>inclinations = knowledge
by inclination/ non-conceptual knowledge à can take form of rules
-more laws over time
-progress of awareness = due
to reflection (perhaps)
>part of it, can learn
from history
-who counts as a person/
citizen has changed
-understanding of what it is
to be human has expanded; recognized rights
>what am i? What is it to
be me?
>>recognized if
someone like me, if share so much in commen, then no reason to
exclude from benefits of person/ human
-know more about what good
is and what is good for human beings
-development of technology
(p. 124 “some have wondered…”)
>sometimes things happen
in civilization that weren’t able to be aware of before
>awareness of the
individual over time
>understanding of human/
living beings becomes richer
-there are regressive
societies (ie Nazi’s)
-why does regression occur/
happen?
>moral blindness, or
excited by evil, natural phenomena
>different people,
different places
>complicit, get ahead,
law over ethics
-overall, general trend
Maritain would say human beings are moving ahead
-concepts of good and evil
change over time
pg. 128-129
-synderesis/ fragmentary
-twilight/ daylight state of
moral conscience
-more comprehensive
understanding of human flourishing/ inhibition
>leads to oppressed and
not oppressed to flourishing
-objective notion of human
flourishing
>opportunities to
flourish become more available
-ancient Romans = violators
of rights and barbaric? No à coarseness of human beings/ primitiveness
>this being natural, and
if don’t know any better, then not guilty
>>did not think of
human beings in the same way
pg. 127 “moral conscience
can be…”
-not intentionally ignorant,
just are
>>what they did was
wrong, but can’t blame them for it (if not practicing, wrong)
>not relativistic, but
understand
16 March 2015 - Sarah Beattie
Precepts and Implications of Natural Law
Maritain has to explain exactly what the Natural Law is.
Why? Because people would object to it as it seems as though the
existence of cultural diversity shows that no Natural Law
exists. Slavery, polygamy existed in cultures where people were
intelligent. Today, there are different cultural practices. In
terms of how we treat people.
Maritain also mentions certain hard cases. What is the
morality of the concentration camp? The way he talks about the
Natural Law allows us to answer some of these challenges.
1.
1st Precepts
a.
Connaturality à moral imperative
(basic, connatural grasp of a moral imperative)
2.
2nd Precepts
a.
More concrete, implications
We have a sense of right and wrong, by giving heed
to this we can make them more concrete.
p. 120-121
Natural Law is not just a set of rules. We have a grasp
of the Natural Law, which is absolutely universal, but does not
yet have much content. 1st precepts are more general
ideas, and they imply 2nd precepts which are more
concrete. Should you have more than one wife? At one time, this
was acceptable. Should you kill strangers? Should you have
sexual relations outside of marriage? There has been a shift in
what seems to be legitimate or illegitimate.
Table II (p. 128-129)
There are basic inclinations which are found everywhere.
Over time, we progress and move from the twilight phase. We
begin to use reason to express these things more concretely.
In early phase, we see human sacrifices, cannibalism.
These are things we do not approve of any longer. From the
twilight phase, we develop a sense of moral consciousness to a
daylight phase. Does this change in our awareness prove
relativism?
Ch. 6-8
Maritain tries to talk about a development and variation
without relativism. One might say that relativism is wrong,
because it suggests no objectivity to ethics. Because something
that is wrong now may have been acceptable in the past. This
view is problematic, because it seems to deny objectivity, i.e.
that relativism is subjectivism.
Maritain would say that subjectivism is not the same as
relativism. What is relative is opposed to what is absolute.
What is subjective is opposed to what is objective. Objectivism
is not opposed to relativism.
You must do what is right, but what you must do is
relative to the kind
of being you are, the kind of skills you have.
Ex: If someone is drowning, a
lifeguard has duties in a different way than a passerby. This is
not a subjective choice. Because of who you are, you must act in
a certain way. You must do what is right, but this is relative
to the kind of person you are. A lifeguard couldn’t observe
someone drowning, and say, “I don’t feel like doing anything.”
He has a duty because of his skills. Relativism is not opposed
to objectivism.
Maritain would say that in the past, people didn’t know
fundamentally what human behaviour is. The more I understand
what it means to be human, the better I know how to treat
others. If I have a sense of what it means to be human, I know
how to appropriately treat someone.
In the time of the patriarchs, in ancient times,
they just didn’t yet understand what it is to be human (which is
why things like polygamy were practiced). At one time, these
things were allowable, now they are restricted. This marks a
change from an old way of doing things to a contemporary way.
Real Infractions and Apparent Infractions
Apparent Infractions
In the Daylight phase, it is considered wrong to go to
war. But, there is always a case of legitimate self-defence. The
Natural Law doesn’t command one to not kill and, in so doing,
let oneself be killed. In the case of theft, if you take food
from someone, but you do so because you are starving to death,
though it may appear to the observer as murder or theft, the
intentionality behind it changes the nature of the act.
In spite of certain cultural variations, the Natural Law
is universal and applicable at all times. However, if I do not
know what human inclinations are, then I cannot be blamed. Yes,
now we recognize polygamy to be contrary to reason, but they
didn’t realize it at the time. Natural Law is always true, but
it doesn’t always tell you who is guilty and who is innocent.
Romans didn’t have conceptual framework to know that slavery is
wrong.
There are several ways we can go wrong in living
according to the Natural Law. For example:
1.
Reason is corrupted
a.
We know that we should respect our parents, or the
elderly. In different cultures, the way this is practiced can
vary.
i.
(p. 138) Maritain discusses a society in which they
put their aged parents to death. The view is that you are doing
them, in a sense, a favour. Who wants to be old? Who wants to be
vulnerable? In one sense, the same value is present. It is not
that they do not understand the precept “respect your parents”,
but rather that this is a case where reason is mistaken in
applying this.
b.
Variation may not be indicative that the value
itself is different, but the application of value.
c.
In the case of incest, the prohibition has little
to do with biology. Incest does not just refer to sexual
relations with blood relatives. It also includes marrying a
sibling, a father-in-law, your mother’s sister, even marrying
someone within the same clan. The reason for the prohibition is
that incest destroys the unity of a family. If you marry your ex
husband’s son, you destroy the unity of the family. It is a
social unity that you must preserve.
d.
Reason, but also inclination, is corrupted.
2.
Inclination is corrupted
a.
Cannibalism takes place not typically because of
hunger, and there are no other food sources. Rather, in some
cases, it is a desire to completely annihilate an enemy. They do
not merely want their enemy to be dead, a desire for safety,
self-preservation, and preventing further attacks on their own
community, but rather they want to completely subsume their
enemy so that there is nothing left of them. This is not a case
of bad reason. This is a corrupted inclination.
b.
Human sacrifice is a fundamentally irrational act.
Again, a corrupted inclination.
Some infractions result because of faults in
reasoning (such as taking your elderly parents for a long walk,
and simply leaving them). In other cases, they are due to a
corrupted inclination (moral blindness), such as in cannibalism.
Moral Blindness – for example, workers in Nazi death camps did
not see the other human beings as persons. In moral blindness,
you almost are not aware or do not even understand what you are
doing.
Maritain wants to show us how his analysis of the
Natural Law explains cultural variation and historical
difference. You can be both relativist and objectivist.
Relativism says whether you like it or not, this is what you
must do.
March 23. –
Keegan Stephesnon
Natural
laws
and Rights
In a way this question of rights follows
from the laws, laws are what we do and rights are what gives us
the right to do
these laws.
Ought --> Can
If you ought to do something
then you have
the ability to do it.
Natural law deals with
rights and duties,
natural rights are also connected to human nature. We have a
right and
obligation to develop our talents, we can find out our rights by
our human
nature. Human natures tells us the things that are suitable or
unsuitable.
Definition of right (found
on page 60):
-others can’t legitimately
interfere with
our rights -rights to life-rights of the pursuit of perfection
of moral
life-right to freedom-right to property
pg 65. Private property
defense, we need
property to live. Nature is a common good, labor gives us
ownership or
something.
Pg 67. We have inalienable
rights, if we
have an inalienable right we can’t give it away to someone else.
Maritain would
distinguish between possessing and exercising rights. We can
possess a right
but that doesn’t mean we can exercise it. We might have the
right to get
married, but we can only exercise it if we have another person
to marry. We
have rights but only to the extent that country has the ability
to exercise
this right (free education). Once society has the ability to
give you that
right, they should allow you to exercise it.
There are the rights of the
human person
and the civic person. The civic persons rights spring from the
positive laws
that depend indirectly on the natural law. The rights of the
civic person are
the right to vote, marriage, due process, etc. Rights of the
people in
society(pg 80) and then there are rights of the working person.
How do we
prioritize these rights?
April 7 Seminar Notes –
Ryan Langevin
What’s the best political
system for the
natural law?
à Not the difference between persons and
individuals. Individuals
have a horizontal relationship to other people in the social
community. Persons
have a vertical relationship to the truth. In a way, the
community is
subordinate to the person, but the individual is subordinate
to the community.
à If you’re looking for inherent value in human
beings, you need more
than just a materialist point of view.
à Maritain believes that we seek knowledge, peace,
spiritual
transcendence, progress toward flourishing – i.e., the good –
all of which are
objective goods that all humans strive toward. This is opposed
to the
liberal-individualistic political model, which holds that all
goods are
subjective and thus left up to the individual to decide for
themselves; people can
do whatever they want as long as they do not infringe on
other’s ability to do
so.
à The rule of law is fundamental to any society
and trumps the will
of the sovereign (according to Maritain). The common good is
objective and one
which all human beings seek. If you do not accept that unity,
society has
nothing to base itself on and will eventually collapse. The
soviet union is an
example of such a collapse due to a lack of a unifying
objective structure on
which to base the political apparatus.
à Maritain argues for an “integral humanism” or
“personalism,” which
is pluralist, grounded in the natural law, and oriented toward
the common good.
à It is normal for us to vote for our leaders, but
those leaders are
supposed to aim for the common good. The majority is not
always right;
minorities have to be protected and have a voice because they
might be right.
Even if they are wrong, sometimes it is good to have the other
side of an
argument, if for nothing more than to show how they are wrong.
The political
leadership must the common good for the community in mind when
decisions are
made – not just what is right for 40% of the population.
Maritain proposes a
species of liberalism aimed at achieving the common good.
à Alternative to Christian political parties:
secular political
groups aimed at achieving the natural law. Maritain talks
about small political
flocks or teams, which achieve political ends without
alienating the common
person from politics. How do you manage these small political
factions? By
having an international faction.
à For Maritain’s system to work, people must
voluntarily separate
private and public interests. What’s good for the community
may not be good for
the individual, but the common good must come first. This is
key – can it be
done?