Google AI: Yes, Michel Bastit is a prominent French philosopher who has indeed extended and rigorously defended Michel Villey’s core thesis regarding the absence of subjective rights (droits subjectifs) in the thought of Thomas Aquinas.Bastit’s scholarship supports this position through several key arguments:The Nature of Ius in Aquinas: Following Villey, Bastit emphasizes that for Aquinas, the term ius strictly refers to an objective "just thing" (res iusta) or the objective balance of a situation. It does not mean a subjective, inherent moral power or possession possessed by an individual, which is the foundational premise of modern human and subjective rights.The Nominalist Rupture: Both Villey and Bastit assert that a legal theory grounded in subjective rights did not emerge from classical or high-scholastic (Thomistic) realism. Instead, it arose as a direct consequence of the nominalist and voluntarist metaphysics introduced later by William of Ockham in the 14th century. By rejecting universal natures in favor of singular realities and elevating God's sheer will, Ockham laid the groundwork for viewing the individual human will as the sovereign source of legal power.Bastit's Specific Contributions: In works like La Naissance de la loi moderne (The Birth of Modern Law), Bastit analyzes this paradigm shift. He traces how the move from ancient and medieval objective law to modern subjective rights involved abandoning a teleological worldview in favor of a modern, mechanistic, and individualistic philosophy.This historical and philosophical genealogy has sparked decades of scholarly debate—often called the "querelle du droit subjectif" (quarrel of the subjective right)—pitting French Thomistic and juridical realists like Villey and Bastit against other historians of ideas (such as Brian Tierney) who argue that natural rights roots can be traced to earlier canonists.Would you like to explore how this classical interpretation of Thomas Aquinas contrasts with modern natural rights theories, or perhaps examine Ockham's role in the Franciscan poverty controversy? Let me know where you'd like to dive deeper.

Yes, Michel Bastit is a prominent French philosopher who has indeed extended and rigorously defended Michel Villey’s core thesis regarding the absence of subjective rights (droits subjectifs) in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Bastit’s scholarship supports this position through several key arguments:

• The Nature of Ius in Aquinas: Following Villey, Bastit emphasizes that for Aquinas, the term ius strictly refers to an objective "just thing" (res iusta) or the objective balance of a situation. It does not mean a subjective, inherent moral power or possession possessed by an individual, which is the foundational premise of modern human and subjective rights. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• The Nominalist Rupture: Both Villey and Bastit assert that a legal theory grounded in subjective rights did not emerge from classical or high-scholastic (Thomistic) realism. Instead, it arose as a direct consequence of the nominalist and voluntarist metaphysics introduced later by William of Ockham in the 14th century. By rejecting universal natures in favor of singular realities and elevating God's sheer will, Ockham laid the groundwork for viewing the individual human will as the sovereign source of legal power. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Bastit's Specific Contributions: In works like La Naissance de la loi moderne (The Birth of Modern Law), Bastit analyzes this paradigm shift. He traces how the move from ancient and medieval objective law to modern subjective rights involved abandoning a teleological worldview in favor of a modern, mechanistic, and individualistic philosophy.

This historical and philosophical genealogy has sparked decades of scholarly debate—often called the "querelle du droit subjectif" (quarrel of the subjective right)—pitting French Thomistic and juridical realists like Villey and Bastit against other historians of ideas (such as Brian Tierney) who argue that natural rights roots can be traced to earlier canonists. [1, 2, 3]

Would you like to explore how this classical interpretation of Thomas Aquinas contrasts with modern natural rights theories, or perhaps examine Ockham's role in the Franciscan poverty controversy? Let me know where you'd like to dive deeper.