Criticism of Finnis’s Natural Law Theory

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Abstract

During many centuries, “Natural Law” doctrine has been interpreted in different
ways; so there have been propounded various theories which trace back to the
ancient Greek age, and which today play a central role in the domains of social
sciences. One theory as regards the natural law is Aquinas’s theory of natural law;
and a recent popular explication of Aquinas’s position is John Finnis’s
interpretation. According to Finnis, an action is wise only when it is done to gain
one of the basic goods. These goods, on Finnis’s view, are: life, knowledge, skilled
performance, play, friendship, marriage, practical reasonableness, and religion. Each
of these goods is self-evident, intrinsic, independent of each other, having equal
value, and non-based on facts. The essay firstly explains Finnis’s natural- law
theory; and then, based on the doctrines of Islamic Transcendent Theosophy, it
offers a criticism of Finnis’s theory.
 

Keywords

References

  1. سبحانی، جعفر(1378) رسالة فی التحسین و التقبیح العقلیین، قم: مؤسسّة الامام الصادق.
  2. طالبی، محمد حسین(1385) " قانون طبیعی و نقش آن در فلسفه حقوق یونان باستان"، معرفت فلسفی12، صص 67-131.
  3. مصباح، محمد تقی(‌1363) آموزش فلسفه،ج1، تهران: سازمان تبلیغات اسلامی.   
  4. مصباح، محمد تقی(‌1367) دروس فلسفه اخلاق، تهران: موسسه اطلاعات.         
  5. مظفر، محمد رضا(1983)   اصول الفقه[1850]، ج1، بیروت: دار التّعارف.
    1. Aristotle (1956) Metaphysics [c. 335–323 B.C.], in Warrington J. trans., London: Dent; New York: Dutton (Everyman’s Library).
    2. Bonar, James   (1902) “Natural Law”, in Baldwin J.M. ed., Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. 2, London: Macmillan, pp. 133-4.
    3. Finnis, John (1996) “Is Natural Law Theory Compatible with Limited Government?”, in George R. P. ed., Natural Law, Liberalism and Morality, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 1-26.
    4. Finnis, John (1997b) “Commensuration and Public Reason”, in Chang R. ed., Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason, Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, pp. 215-33.
    5. Finnis, John (1998a) Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal Theory, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
    6. Grant, Robert (1967) “Patristic Philosophy”, in Edwards P. ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 6, New   York: Macmillan, pp. 57-9.
    7. Haakonssen, Knud             (2001) “Natural Law”, in Becker L. and Becker C. eds., Encyclopedia of Ethics, Vol. 2, London: Routledge, pp. 1205-12.
    8. Hume, David (1967) A Treatise of Human Nature [1740], in Selby-bigge L.A. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.  
    9. Novak, David (1998) Natural Law in Judaism, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
    10. Ormsby, Eric (1984) Theodicy in Islamic Thought, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
  1. Aristotle (1970) Physics      I, II [c. 335–323 B.C.], in Charlton W. trans., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  1. Finnis, John (1980) Natural Law and      Natural Rights, Oxford:      Clarendon Press.
  2. Finnis, John (1981) “Natural Law and the      ‘Is’-‘Ought’ Question: An Invitation to Professor Veatch”, in Catholic      Lawyer, 26, pp. 266-77.
  3. Finnis, John (1983) Fundamentals of      Ethics, Washington, DC:      GeorgetownUniversity Press.
  4. Finnis, John (1987a) Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism, Oxford: Boyle, Joseph        Clarendon Press.
  5. and Grisez, Germain
  6. Finnis, John (1987b) “Practical      Principles, Moral Truth, and Ultimate Ends”, inBoyle, Joseph          American Journal of Jurisprudence,      32, pp. 99-151.
  7. and Grisez,      Germain          
  1. Plato (1961) The Republic [c. 375      B.C.], in Shorey P. trans., in Hamilton E.      and Cairns H. eds., The Collected      Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, pp. 575-844.  
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics