Father Ernest Fortin’s critique of human rights—heavily influenced by political philosopher Leo Strauss—is a cornerstone of his work. His core argument is that modern "human rights" are conceptually flawed and fundamentally incompatible with classical and Christian natural law.Rather than seeing human rights as a natural evolution of medieval theology, Fortin argues that they represent a radical, dangerous break from it. His critique is detailed extensively in his third volume of collected essays, Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good.
Father Ernest Fortin’s critique of human rights—heavily influenced by political philosopher Leo Strauss—is a cornerstone of his work. His core argument is that modern "human rights" are conceptually flawed and fundamentally incompatible with classical and Christian natural law. [1, 2, 3]
Rather than seeing human rights as a natural evolution of medieval theology, Fortin argues that they represent a radical, dangerous break from it. His critique is detailed extensively in his third volume of collected essays, Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good. [1, 2, 3, 4]
1. The Radical Shift: Duties vs. Rights
Fortin notes that ancient and medieval thought focused on duties, while modern thought prioritizes rights. [1, 2]
- Premodern View (Natural Law): Human beings are defined by their obligations to God, family, and the community. Justice means giving others what they are due based on objective moral order. [1, 2, 3]
- Modern View (Human Rights): Initiated by Thomas Hobbes, this view flips the script. The individual's preservation and absolute freedom come first; duties are only secondary rules we agree to so we don't kill each other. [, 2, 3, 4]
2. The Rejection of a Human Telos (Purpose)
Under classical natural law (such as the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas), human beings have an inherent nature and a shared goal: the pursuit of virtue and spiritual perfection. Modern rights-talk completely rejects this. [1, 2, 3]
- Rights treat humans as isolated atoms free to choose their own arbitrary ends.
- Because a rights-based society refuses to define the "good life," it separates law from morality and ceases to care about cultivating virtue. [1]
3. The Erosion of the Common Good
Fortin argues that a society built entirely on rights cannot sustain a true community. []
- When citizens view themselves primarily as claimants asserting rights against one another, public-spiritedness dies.
- It creates a "political hedonism" where the common good is reduced to a mere legal compromise to maximize individual freedom. [, 3]
4. Critique of Modern Catholic Social Teaching
One of Fortin's most controversial positions was his blunt criticism of his own Church's modern direction. [1, 2]
- Starting with Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Catholic Church began adopting the language of "rights" (e.g., the right to private property, human rights) to defend the dignity of the person. [1, 2, 3]
- Fortin argued that by adopting modern rights-talk, the Church inadvertently smuggled in the secular, anti-teleological philosophy of Hobbes and Locke, creating a confusing hybrid that undermines traditional Christian morality. [1, 2, 3]
Summary of Differences
| Feature | Classical Natural Law (Fortin's Preference) | Modern Human Rights (Fortin's Target) |
|---|---|---|
| Starting Point | The community and objective moral duties | The isolated individual and subjective claims |
| Primary Goal | Cultivation of virtue and the common good | Protection of individual freedom and autonomy |
| Human Nature | Intrinisically social with a natural end (telos) | Atomized with no inherent moral purpose |
Comments