Skip to main content

Posts

Google AI: Michel Villey’s theory diagnoses the shift in Western legal philosophy from "classical objective right" to "modern subjective rights," viewing human rights as an ideological distortion that divorces law from reality.Core ConceptsClassical Objective Right (Iustum): Rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic natural law. It views the law as a cosmic or social objective order. "Right" was not a possession of a person, but rather the just proportion or balance to be discovered in the external world (e.g., giving each person their due in a specific relationship or transaction).Nominalism: A philosophical movement championed by thinkers like William of Ockham that denied the existence of universal truths or inherent natures. It posited that reality consists only of isolated particulars.Modern Subjective Right (Facultas): Because nominalism denied objective meaning in nature, the foundation of reality shifted to the individual will. Law was thereby inverted from an objective cosmic order into a personal, arbitrary power, property, or claim inherent to a subject.The Transition to "Human Rights"Villey argued this semantic revolution completely redefined the concept of ius (law/right) in the Western world.From Action to Power: Ius shifted from meaning "that which is just" (objective) to "a power possessed by an individual" (subjective).The Will as Creator: In the modern formulation (seen in thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and later natural rights theorists), the individual’s subjective will becomes the source of moral and legal authority, irrespective of the external, natural order.Villey's Critique: Villey was fiercely critical of this development. He viewed modern human rights as dangerous fictions that atomized society, stripped law of its relational and objective character, and ultimately led to self-defeating subjective claims of personal power.

Michel Villey’s theory diagnoses the shift in Western legal philosophy from "classical objective right" to "modern subjective rights," viewing human rights as an ideological distortion that divorces law from reality. [ 1 , 2 ] Core Concepts Classical Objective Right ( Iustum ): Rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic natural law. It views the law as a cosmic or social objective order . "Right" was not a possession of a person, but rather the just proportion or balance to be discovered in the external world (e.g., giving each person their due in a specific relationship or transaction). [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 ] Nominalism: A philosophical movement championed by thinkers like William of Ockham that denied the existence of universal truths or inherent natures. It posited that reality consists only of isolated particulars. [ 1 , 2 ] Modern Subjective Right ( Facultas ): Because nominalism denied objective meaning in nature, the foundation of reality shifted to the i...
Recent posts

AI Overview Michel Villey famously argued that this shift transformed law from objective justice into subjective rights (droits subjectifs). He traced this transition to a medieval philosophical revolution—specifically William of Ockham’s nominalism.Villey's critique outlines how the concept of law mutated:Classical (Aristotelian/Roman) Justice: Rooted in objective reality, where the goal of a judge or jurist is to observe interpersonal relationships and discover the proper, objective share/balance (suum cuique—to each his due) in real-world scenarios.Modern Subjective Rights: Rooted in nominalism, where the external, natural order is denied in favor of "individual will." Under this framework, law is inverted into a power or arbitrary subjective claim inherently possessed by an individual (the precursor to modern "human rights").The Core of Villey's ArgumentNominalism over Realism: By shifting philosophical focus to nominalism, the medieval era abandoned the idea that things in the real world have an inherent, discoverable nature or objective value.Focus on the Individual: The focus shifted from the external, interpersonal act of doing justice to the internal faculties and personal claims of the individual.The "Tool" of Law: Villey argued that this perverts the purpose of law; rather than acting as the art of finding a just balance among competing claims, law becomes merely an instrument or a weapon used to enforce arbitrary, subjective human will.Villey outlined these ideas extensively across his historical works, exploring how the Franciscan debates of the Middle Ages first pioneered this subjective concept of ius. You can explore the historical mechanics of his thesis in The origins of the modern notion of subjective right or examine his broader Aristotelian framework on justice in The essence of law according to Michel Villey.

AI Overview

Catholic Social Teaching Isn’t Catholic

  https://medium.com/catholicism-for-the-modern-world/catholic-social-teaching-isnt-catholic-537d6c65a266 Catholic Social Teaching Isn’t Catholic Michael D. Greaney Follow 7 min read · Aug 12, 2023 51 Press enter or click to view image in full size Pope Leo XIII C atholic social teaching isn’t Catholic . . . at least with a capital C. It’s catholic, that is, universal, with a small c. It applies to everyone. Atheists, agnostics, and the neighbor whom you’ve consigned to Hell thirteen times this week are subject to “Catholic” social teaching and (what some people don’t want to hear) protected by it as well. Consistent with the positive formulation of the first principle of reason — that which is true is as true and is true in the same way as everything else that is true (the principle or law of identity) — all human beings, even (or especially) those whom you dislike or hate with all the fervor at your command, are as human, and human in the same way, as you. Catholic social teachin...

Google AI Overview I would love to dive into both, but let's start with William of Ockham's fascinating role in the Franciscan poverty controversy, as it completely reshaped medieval political philosophy.Ockham became the intellectual heavy hitter for the Spiritual Franciscans in their fiery clash with Pope John XXII starting in 1322. At the heart of the debate was the question: Could one perfectly follow the life of Christ—who owned nothing—if they used property to survive?Here is how the controversy unfolded and why it matters:The Franciscan Stance: The friars argued for absolute poverty (usus pauper). They claimed to have the use of basic necessities (like food and clothing) without holding the legal ownership or property rights to them.The Papal Rejection: Pope John XXII issued the bull Quia nonnunquam, declaring that separating the legal right of ownership from the physical use of an item is logically and legally impossible. He argued that using food means consuming it, which inherently implies ownership.Ockham’s Counter-Attack: Fleeing papal custody to seek protection under the Holy Roman Emperor, Ockham wrote extensively against the Pope. He argued that the Pope was a heretic for claiming absolute dominion over the Church and redefining poverty.The Birth of Rights Theory: To defend the Franciscans, Ockham had to define what "rights" are. He famously distinguished between natural rights (which he framed as moral powers or human capacities granted by reason and divine law) and legal rights (which are established by human governments and popes).By arguing that humans have fundamental, natural liberties that even a Pope cannot strip away, Ockham helped lay some of the earliest groundwork for modern theories of natural rights.If you'd like, let's look closer at one of these angles:How Ockham's distinction between natural and legal rights sparked the shift into modern political thought.The specifics of how this contrasts with Thomas Aquinas's classical view of natural law and property.

AI Overview I would love to dive into both, but let's start with William of Ockham's fascinating role in the Franciscan poverty controversy , as it completely reshaped medieval political philosophy . [ 1 , 2 ] Ockham became the intellectual heavy hitter for the Spiritual Franciscans in their fiery clash with Pope John XXII starting in 1322. At the heart of the debate was the question: Could one perfectly follow the life of Christ—who owned nothing—if they used property to survive? Here is how the controversy unfolded and why it matters: The Franciscan Stance: The friars argued for absolute poverty ( usus pauper ). They claimed to have the use of basic necessities (like food and clothing) without holding the legal ownership or property rights to them. The Papal Rejection: Pope John XXII issued the bull Quia nonnunquam , declaring that separating the legal right of ownership from the physical use of an item is logically and legally impossible. He argued that ...