Ultimately, the text views Maritain's framework as a flawed, historically conditioned compromise that deeply influenced modern Catholic social teaching (such as Vatican II's Dignitatis humanae), but lacks the timeless validity of classical natural law
Maritain does not grasp St. Thomas's view, simply remarking that in antiquity and the Middle Ages the natural law was focused on obligations rather than rights. 100 In the absence of criteria for determining their scope, the rights postulated by Maritain are in effect no more than a list of desirable objectives to be pursued. Maritain distinguishes between rights that can be limited by the demands of the common good, and those that are inalienable. He does not offer criteria for distinguishing between the two, and the examples of inalienable rights that he gives-those of life and the pursuit of happiness-do not have any evident characteristics that identify them as being inalienable, except for their having been so described in the American Declaration of Independence (no doubt a reflection of Maritain's sojourn in America). One need not labor the point that this account of natural law and natural rights does not stand up to examination. In addition to its influence on Vatican H's Dignitatis humanae, its interest lies in its illustrating the full flowering of the tendency, already noted by Villey in the baroque Scholastics, to substitute a concern with arriving at the right answer for a concern with answering rightly-with the content of the right answer having been provided by the goals, interests, and presuppositions of the time.
10:13 PM
This critique argues that Jacques Maritain fails to provide an intellectually rigorous foundation for natural rights, choosing instead to substitute the philosophical depth of St. Thomas Aquinas with a modern list of culturally specific, desirable goals.
The excerpt breaks down this failure into three core criticisms:
- Lack of structural criteria: Maritain asserts a list of human rights but provides no objective, philosophical framework to determine their scope or boundaries. Without these criteria, his "rights" read more like a wishlist of contemporary societal ideals than universal truths.
- Arbitrary classification: While Maritain attempts to separate rights into two categories—those that can be limited by the common good and those that are strictly inalienable—he fails to explain why a right falls into one category over the other. His primary examples of inalienable rights (life and the pursuit of happiness) seem borrowed directly from the American Declaration of Independence rather than derived from rigorous Thomistic derivation.
- Prioritizing conclusions over method: The author links Maritain to a broader decline in Scholastic philosophy. Instead of focusing on "answering rightly" (using a sound, objective philosophical method to discover justice), Maritain focuses on "arriving at the right answer." In doing so, he merely back-engineers a philosophical justification for the pre-existing political values, goals, and interests of the mid-20th century.
Ultimately, the text views Maritain's framework as a flawed, historically conditioned compromise that deeply influenced modern Catholic social teaching (such as Vatican II's Dignitatis humanae), but lacks the timeless validity of classical natural law
Comments