The Concept of Right Reason in Seventeenth-Century French Thought

During his own lifetime Bishop Joseph Hall was nicknamed “our spiritual Seneca” by Henry Wotton and later called “our English Seneca” by Thomas Fuller; as a result it has recently become fashionable to associate him with seventeenth-century English Neo-Stoicism. A seventeenth-century Neo-Stoic is of interest presumably because he points in the direction of eighteenth-century Neo-Stoicism, away from a revealed religion toward a natural religion, away from faith toward reason. In a recent article Philip A. Smith calls Hall “the leading Neo-Stoic of the seventeenth century” and says that he enthusiastically preached the “Neo-Stoic brand of theology” to which Sir Thomas Browne objected. This theology maintained that “to follow ‘right reason’ was to follow nature, which was the same thing as following God.” Smith goes on to say that “what most attracted seventeenth-century Christian humanists like Bishop Hall was the fact that Stoicism attempted to frame a theory of the universe and of the individual man which would approximate a rule of life in conformity with an ‘immanent cosmic reason‘”—though in the same paragraph he also mentions the point “that Neo-Stoic divines of the seventeenth century were interested in Stoicism almost exclusively from the ethical point of view.” He cites Lipsius to show how a Christian might reach an approximation between the Stoic Fate and Christian Providence, leaving the reader to assume that Hall might also have made this approximation. He says that “the natural light of reason, as expounded by the Stoic philosophers, became, for seventeenth-century Neo-Stoics, the accepted guide to conduct” and that “religious and moral writers endeavored to trace a relationship between moral and natural law which in effect resulted in the practical code of ethical behavior commonly associated with Neo-Stoicism.”

Download Full-text

Law, War and Method in the Commentary on the Law of Prize by Hugo Grotius

Grotiana ◽

10.1163/187607508x366517 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 26 (1) ◽

pp. 79-103

Author(s):

Merio Scattola

Keyword(s):

Seventeenth Century ◽

Early Modern ◽

Modern Theory ◽

Logical Relationship ◽

Hugo Grotius ◽

Theory Of War ◽

Right Reason ◽

Different Levels ◽

Humanistic Tradition ◽

Scholastic Tradition

AbstractThe question whether both enemies in a war could claim the same right, was a fundamental topic in the early modern theory of war and Grotius treated it briefly in his On Law of Prize and Booty. The jurisprudence of the seventeenth century developed two explanations: the Scholastic tradition held that only one party could fight with right reason, whereas some authors of the humanistic tradition thought that in some cases it was impossible to solve this question. Grotius took elements from both traditions, applying them to two different levels of his argument. If we namely consider the rulers, we should accept the Scholastic conclusion that only one party can fight with right reason. But the subordinate soldiers do not always have an exhaustive knowledge of the situation and need first of all to acknowledge that their superiors command legitimately. Thus, each level uses a different logical relationship in the Aristotelian square because the enemies follow in the former case the pattern of contrary propositions, but in the latter they obey a pattern of subcontrary propositions.

Download Full-text

Catholic Natural Law and Business Ethics

Spiritual Goods Faith Traditions and the Practice of Business ◽

10.5840/spiritgds200111 ◽

2001 ◽

pp. 107-140 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Manuel Velasquez

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Twentieth Century ◽

Seventeenth Century ◽

Natural Law ◽

Ethical Issues ◽

The United States ◽

Thomas Aquinas ◽

Alasdair Macintyre ◽

Basic Goods ◽

Right Reason

This article describes Catholic natural law tradition by examining its origins in the medieval penitentials, the papal decretals, the writings of Thomas Aquinas, and seventeenth-century casuistry. Catholic natural law emerges as a flexible ethic that conceives of human nature as rational and as oriented to certain basic goods that ought to be pursued and whose pursuit is made possible by the virtues. Four approaches to natural law that have evolved within the United States during the twentieth century are then identified, including the traditionalist, proportionalist, right reason, and historicist approaches. The normative implications of these approaches are discussed in relation to ethical issues in the tobacco industry, ITT under Geneen, the marketing of pharmaceuticals, affirmative action, and bribery. It is argued that Alasdair MacIntyre is correct in claiming that the natural law tradition issuperior to the liberal ethics of modern deontology and utilitarianism.

Download Full-text

Natural Law and Business Ethics

Business Ethics Quarterly ◽

10.2307/3857300 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 83-107 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Manuel Velasquez ◽

F. Neil Brady

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Seventeenth Century ◽

Natural Law ◽

Tobacco Industry ◽

Ethical Issues ◽

The United States ◽

Thomas Aquinas ◽

Alasdair Macintyre ◽

Basic Goods ◽

Right Reason

Abstract:We describe the Catholic natural law tradition by examining its origins in the medieval penitentials, the papal decretals, the writings of Thomas Aquinas, and seventeenth century casuistry. Catholic natural law emerges as a flexible ethic that conceives of human nature as rational and as oriented to certain basic goods that ought to be pursued and whose pursuit is made possible by the virtues. We then identify four approaches to natural law that have evolved within the United States during the twentieth century, including the traditionalist, proportionalist, right reason, and historicist approaches. The normative implications of these approaches are discussed in relation to ethical issues in the tobacco industry, ITT under Geneen, the marketing of pharmaceuticals, affirmative action, and bribery. It is argued that Alasdair MacIntyre is correct in claiming that the natural law tradition is superior to the liberal ethics of modern deontology and utilitarianism.

Download Full-text