Skip to main content

Posts

In this critique, Seagrave argues that John Finnis (and similarly, classical personalists like Jacques Maritain), in their eagerness to construct a modern framework for universal human rights rooted in traditional Thomistic natural law, "too easily dismiss the Hobbesian legacy of modern natural rights doctrines."The Core of the CritiqueThe "Hobbesian Legacy": Thomas Hobbes radically redefined the classical understanding of natural law. In classical philosophy (e.g., Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas), "law" or "right" (jus) was an objective moral order or what is due to others based on virtue and the common good. Hobbes inverted this by arguing that a "right" is essentially an individual, subjective, and pre-political power—primarily the unlimited liberty toward self-preservation

The quote you referenced originates from the work of political theorist S.A. Seagrave (specifically in his book The Foundations of Natural Morality ), where he critically evaluates how modern natural law thinkers handle the historical shift in the concept of rights. [ 1 , 2 ] In this critique, Seagrave argues that John Finnis (and similarly, classical personalists like Jacques Maritain ), in their eagerness to construct a modern framework for universal human rights rooted in traditional Thomistic natural law, "too easily dismiss the Hobbesian legacy of modern natural rights doctrines." [ 1 , 2 ] The Core of the Critique The "Hobbesian Legacy": Thomas Hobbes radically redefined the classical understanding of natural law. In classical philosophy (e.g., Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas), "law" or "right" ( jus ) was an objective moral order or what is due to others based on virtue and the common good. Hobbes inverted this by arguing that a "ri...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

Finnis tries to anchor modern rights to a foundation of collective moral duty. However, Seagrave claims that by ignoring the "Hobbesian legacy," Finnis fails to see that modern rights language carries an inherent individualistic bias that resists being tied back down to traditional moral obligations

This quote is a key critique from political theorist S. Adam Seagrave in his book The Foundations of Natural Morality: On the Compatibility of Natural Rights and the Natural Law . [ 1 ] Seagrave argues that legal philosopher John Finnis —a major figure in modern natural law theory—glosses over how deeply modern human rights language is rooted in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes . [ 1 , 2 ] The Core of the Disagreement The tension between Seagrave and Finnis centers on the historical and conceptual transition from classical "natural law" to modern "natural rights": [ 1 , 2 ] Feature John Finnis's View S. Adam Seagrave's Critique Origin of Rights Rights naturally evolve out of traditional classical/scholastic natural law (e.g., Thomas Aquinas) and serve the common good. Modern rights actually trace back to a Hobbesian shift , which severed rights from objective moral duties. The "Hobbesian Legacy" Minimizes or dismisses Hobbes's impact, viewing ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Critics like Garrigou-Lagrange worried that Maritain's "gaze turned away from himself" leaned too close to Ontologism—the condemned philosophical error that the human mind has an immediate, intuitive view of God or divine things without the mediation of creatures. [1, 2] Critics maintained that Maritain's attempt to bridge the medieval "theocentric gaze" with modern human rights resulted in a philosophy that implicitly prioritized the individual ego, creating an anthropocentric loop despite his claims of defending a theocentric past. [1]

Strict traditionalist and Neo-Thomist critics (such as Charles De Koninck , Étienne Gilson , and members of the Garrigou-Lagrange school) offered serious critiques of Maritain’s historical romanticism and the theological conclusions he drew from it. 1. The Myth of the "Non-Reflex" Age The Critique: Critics argue that Maritain's dichotomy between a "non-reflex" medieval age and a "reflex" modern age is an oversimplification. [ 1 ] The Thomist Reality: Medieval scholasticism was fundamentally reflex and analytical. St. Thomas Aquinas dedicated significant portions of the Summa Theologiae to psychological introspection, analyzing human agency, the mechanics of the human intellect, internal passions, and the architecture of the human soul. The Error: By characterizing the medieval gaze as solely "turned away from himself," Maritain inadvertently minimized the deep medieval focus on individual moral responsibility and psychological self-exami...
Post a Comment
Read more