自然法则理论,“新”与旧

Q2 Social Sciences
S. Coyle
{"title":"自然法则理论,“新”与旧","authors":"S. Coyle","doi":"10.1093/ajj/auad004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the second edition of Natural Law and Natural Rights John Finnis observes that, whilst he expected criticism of his theory from positivists, he did not expect it from traditional natural law theorists who felt that the theory was insufficiently grounded in Aquinas’s doctrines. Finnis argued that the divergence was a mirage occasioned by his addressing topics out of the standard orders of treatment. This essay considers what Finnis’s theory would look like if placed back into Aquinas’s orders of treatment, and gauges the extent to which it conforms to Aquinas’s doctrines, and the extent to which it is divergent and “new.” This analysis may hopefully serve as a starting point for further study.","PeriodicalId":39920,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural Law Theory, “New” and Old\",\"authors\":\"S. Coyle\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajj/auad004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In the second edition of Natural Law and Natural Rights John Finnis observes that, whilst he expected criticism of his theory from positivists, he did not expect it from traditional natural law theorists who felt that the theory was insufficiently grounded in Aquinas’s doctrines. Finnis argued that the divergence was a mirage occasioned by his addressing topics out of the standard orders of treatment. This essay considers what Finnis’s theory would look like if placed back into Aquinas’s orders of treatment, and gauges the extent to which it conforms to Aquinas’s doctrines, and the extent to which it is divergent and “new.” This analysis may hopefully serve as a starting point for further study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auad004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auad004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在《自然法与自然权利》第二版中,约翰·芬尼斯(John Finnis)指出,虽然他预计实证主义者会对他的理论提出批评,但他并没有想到传统的自然法理论家会对其提出批评,因为他们认为该理论在阿奎那的学说中没有足够的基础。芬尼斯认为,这种分歧是由于他处理的话题超出了标准的治疗顺序而造成的海市蜃楼。本文考虑了如果将芬尼斯的理论放回阿奎那的治疗顺序中会是什么样子,并衡量了它在多大程度上符合阿奎那的学说,以及它在多程度上是不同的和“新的”。这一分析有望成为进一步研究的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Natural Law Theory, “New” and Old
In the second edition of Natural Law and Natural Rights John Finnis observes that, whilst he expected criticism of his theory from positivists, he did not expect it from traditional natural law theorists who felt that the theory was insufficiently grounded in Aquinas’s doctrines. Finnis argued that the divergence was a mirage occasioned by his addressing topics out of the standard orders of treatment. This essay considers what Finnis’s theory would look like if placed back into Aquinas’s orders of treatment, and gauges the extent to which it conforms to Aquinas’s doctrines, and the extent to which it is divergent and “new.” This analysis may hopefully serve as a starting point for further study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Jurisprudence
American Journal of Jurisprudence Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信