{"title":"Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf on Last Wills and Testaments","authors":"Raphael Ribeiro","doi":"10.1163/18760759-04000006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hugo Grotius believed that last wills belonged to the Law of Nature, whereas Samuel Pufendorf argued that testamentary succession was a mere creation of human laws. I argue that Pufendorf’s rejection of the Natural Law origins for wills lacks internal consistency in both his Natural Law system and his proprietary rights theory. Pufendorf even contradicts his own previous claim stating wills are recognised by the Law of Nature as useful to the promotion of social peace. Grotius’s analysis of testaments, on the other hand, brief though it may be, is entirely consistent with his previous arguments: that the Law of Nature can attach itself to human creation; and that a human creation such as testamentary succession belongs to Natural Law when derived from, or when it agrees with, human reason and sociability.","PeriodicalId":42132,"journal":{"name":"Grotiana","volume":"40 1","pages":"146-164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760759-04000006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grotiana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760759-04000006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Hugo Grotius believed that last wills belonged to the Law of Nature, whereas Samuel Pufendorf argued that testamentary succession was a mere creation of human laws. I argue that Pufendorf’s rejection of the Natural Law origins for wills lacks internal consistency in both his Natural Law system and his proprietary rights theory. Pufendorf even contradicts his own previous claim stating wills are recognised by the Law of Nature as useful to the promotion of social peace. Grotius’s analysis of testaments, on the other hand, brief though it may be, is entirely consistent with his previous arguments: that the Law of Nature can attach itself to human creation; and that a human creation such as testamentary succession belongs to Natural Law when derived from, or when it agrees with, human reason and sociability.
Hugo Grotius认为最后遗嘱属于自然法则,而Samuel Pufendorf则认为遗嘱继承只是人类法则的创造。我认为,普芬多夫对遗嘱自然法起源的否定在他的自然法体系和所有权理论中都缺乏内在的一致性。普芬多夫甚至反驳了他自己之前的说法,即自然法承认遗嘱对促进社会和平有用。另一方面,Grotius对遗嘱的分析虽然简短,但与他之前的论点完全一致:自然法则可以附属于人类创造;人类的创造,如遗嘱继承,如果源于或符合人类的理性和社会性,则属于自然法。
期刊介绍:
Grotiana appears under the auspices of the Grotiana Foundation. The journal’s leading objective is the furtherance of the Grotian tradition. It will welcome any relevant contribution to a better understanding of Grotius’ life and works. At the same time close attention will be paid to Grotius’ relevance for present-day thinking about world problems. Grotiana therefore intends to be a forum for exchanges concerning the philosophical, ethical and legal fundamentals of the search for an international order. The journal is to be published annually. At intervals thematic issues will be inserted. The preferred language for papers and reviews is English.