scholarly journals Why Why Liberalism Failed Fails as an Account of the American Order

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 19-31
Author(s):  
Paul R. DeHart ◽  

In Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen contends that the American founding is fundamentally Hobbesian and that the Constitution is the application of the Hobbesian revolution concerning liberty and anthropology. I contend that Deneen fundamentally mischaracterizes the American founding. The founders and framers affirmed the necessity of consent for political authority and obligation. But they also situated the necessity of consent in the context of a morally and metaphysically realist natural law, maintained that an objective good of the whole constitutes the final end of political association, and described liberty as subjection to the law of nature and the government of God. To be determined by one’s base passions was to be a slave. Moreover, their constitutional thought and the institutional design of the constitutions they built rejected Hobbes’s theory of sovereign power and the metaphysical ground on which it rests.

Author(s):  
Peter Anstey

John Locke was the leading English philosopher of the late seventeenth century. His two major works, An Essay concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises of Government, both published in 1690, have exerted enormous influence on subsequent thought, particularly in metaphysics, theory of knowledge and political philosophy. Locke’s writings were central to the philosophy of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century and set the terms of reference for modern liberalism. Educated in the arts at Oxford, a friend of Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, and a close associate of the leading politician the first Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke’s intellectual range was broad. He trained as a physician, dabbled in chemistry and botany and throughout his life kept abreast of developments in natural philosophy. At the same time, he developed theories of natural law and religious toleration, contributed to debates on contemporary economic issues, wrote a primer on the philosophy of education, defended the reasonableness of Christianity and maintained an extensive correspondence and intellectual network. It was not until the publication of the Essay when Locke was in his late 50s, however, that he became a public intellectual. The Essay provides an analysis of the scope and limits of the faculty of human understanding, using a sophisticated theory of ideas. It contains four books, the first of which seeks to refute the view that the mind contains innate metaphysical and moral principles. The second book sets out Locke’s theory of ideas and contains original and penetrating treatments of the nature of the will and motivation and the nature of personal identity. It also contains Locke’s theory of material qualities with his famous distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and discussions of the nature of substance, duration, infinity and the association of ideas. Book Three deals with the nature of language, the theory of essences, and provides an account of the way in which humans divide substances into species. Book Four uses the resources set out in the preceding books to develop a theory of knowledge and belief and to explore the differences between faith and reason. Central to Locke’s project is the view that all knowledge is constructed out of ideas. Knowledge in its most basic form is nothing but the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas and ideas can only be acquired through the senses or through introspection on the operations of our minds. Once the understanding is furnished with enough simple ideas from these two sources of experience, it sets about constructing complex ideas, forming propositions out of its various ideas and giving the ideas names. Locke is fundamentally opposed to the view that knowledge and reason begin with a set of basic principles or maxims, such as that the whole is the sum of its parts. This is the motivation for his arguments against the claim that principles are innate. Instead we must construct the principles of all the different sciences from scratch out of our stock of ideas. In the cases of mathematics and morality this can be achieved. In the case of our knowledge of the sorts or species of substances we encounter in the external world, however, we are significantly constrained. This is because our senses are limited and we do not have epistemic access to the inner natures of things. We can see many effects but the underlying causes of those effects, such as magnetism or cohesion, are out of reach. As a result, Locke is pessimistic about the prospects of natural science, though he does believe that the method of experimental philosophy, particularly natural history, gives us the best chance to extend our knowledge of the natural world. Moreover, he believes that of all the speculative systems of natural philosophy, the corpuscular view of matter is the most intelligible. Locke’s political philosophy gives us some insight into his conception of the form that a demonstrative moral philosophy might take. However, the precise relation between the Two Treatises and the Essay remains a controversial issue. The starting point for Locke’s view of the formation of civil society is the natural equality of every human being. We are equal in freedom and equal in both power and obligation with respect to the law of nature. However, in the absence of civil society – that is, in the state of nature – we suffer many inconveniences, particularly with regard to protecting property and applying the law of nature. It is only by consenting to give up our basic power to enforce the law of nature, a power that is common to all, to an authority, that we are able to overcome the inconveniences of the state of nature. In so doing, we secure the integrity of our property, that is, our life, liberty and possessions. The handing over of our basic power does not render us politically impotent however. For, should the government, whether a democracy, oligarchy or monarchy, break the people’s trust, the citizens have a right of resistance and can dissolve the government. Locke’s Two Treatises was published anonymously and did not embroil him in ongoing debate in his own day, though its subsequent influence was profound. The same cannot be said of another anonymous work, his A Letter Concerning Toleration, which argued that religious toleration should be extended to all but atheists and those who submit to foreign authority. The most vigorous reaction to Locke’s writings, however, was to the Essay, particularly to Locke’s account of personal identity as continuity of consciousness and his suggestion that matter fitly disposed might have the power of thought. These two issues are indicative of the rich philosophical resources within the Essay, both in its positive theses and its illustrative material, which have ensured that this work continues to be read and studied with profit today.


1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Tuck

Many English political theorists of the mid-seventeenth century reveal in their writings an awareness that new political terminologies were needed to cope with the apparent breakdown of traditional ideologies. Such an insight is of course famously displayed by Thomas Hobbes and the early Hobbists such as Dudley Digges, in their treatment of orthodox Natural Law doctrines - ‘if we looke backe to the Law of Nature, we shall finde that the people would have had a clearer and more distinct notion of it, if common use of calling it Law had not helped to confound their understanding, when it ought to have been named the Right of nature’ wrote Digges in 1643.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens David Ohlin

In recent litigation before U.S. federal courts, the government has argued that military commissions have jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against the "common law of war," which the government defines as a body of domestic offenses, such as inchoate conspiracy, that violate the American law of war. This Article challenges that definition by arguing that stray references to the term "common law of war"in historical materials meant something completely different. By examining the Lieber Code, the writings of early natural law theorists, and early American judicial decisions, this Article concludes that the "common law of war" referred to a branch of the law of nations that applied during internal armed conflicts, such as civil wars with non-state actors. This body of law was called "common," not because it was extended or elaborated by the common law method of judge-applied law, but rather because it was "common" to all mankind by virtue of natural law, and thus even applied to internal actors, such as rebel forces, who were not otherwise bound by international law as formal states were. By recapturing this lost definition of the common law of war, this Article casts some doubt on the U.S. government's position that military commissions have jurisdiction not only over international offenses, but also domestic violations of the law of war.Published: Jens David Ohlin, "The Common Law of War," 58 William & Mary Law Review (2016)


Author(s):  
Kiki Kristanto ◽  
Thea Farina ◽  
Putri Fransiska Purnama Pratiwi ◽  
Libra Adelianty Asuransia

Given the complexity of the problem of corruption, it must be treated seriously through a balance of rigorous and precise steps. This step is not only taken by the government and law enforcers, but also by involving the participation of indigenous peoples. In the indigenous Dayak Ngaju community, they are familiar with the principle of not having a bahadat. This principle means that the behavior of life that upholds honesty, equality, togetherness and tolerance and obeying the law (state law, customary law and natural law). According to the author, the existence of the principle of Belom Bahadat can be used as a preventive instrument for the prevention of corruption by government officials in Central Kalimantan Province. This means that there is a contribution of customary law norms to the government's efforts to prevent the occurrence of criminal acts of corruption through the initiation of the belom bahadat principle of Dayak Ngaju customary law.


MOVE ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 37-56
Author(s):  
Richard Kent Evans

This chapter is a study of The Guidelines of John Africa, MOVE’s sacred text. John Africa dictated The Guidelines over a span of six years. Several different people helped him create the manuscript. The Guidelines of John Africa are an explanation for, and solution to, the problem of evil. John Africa called these forces of evil the “reformed world system,” or, more frequently, “the System.” John Africa’s worldview was dualistic; it understood the cosmos as a site of conflict that pitted forces of good against forces of evil. The force of good went by many names: the Law of Mama, the Law of Nature, God, Natural Law, and most frequently, Life. Natural processes, according to MOVE, are “coordinated” by this active force.


2021 ◽  
pp. 222-250
Author(s):  
Stuart Banner

This chapter examines the status of natural law in the legal system over the past century. In law schools, natural law never ceased to be a topic of study. This academic interest in natural law has had almost no effect on the working legal system, where natural law has been relied upon by only the most idiosyncratic of judges and lawyers. The history of our use of natural law has nevertheless continued to exert influence on the legal system, which still contains doctrines and practices that were once based on the law of nature.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Łuszczyńska ◽  
Artur Łuczyński

AUTHORITARIAN LAWS OF NATURE? SEVERAL NOTES ON THE NEGATIVE POTENTIAL OF POSITIVE CONCEPTSThe article presents authors’ reflection upon the problem of the law of nature. In the literature on the subject, there is adominant opinion that the natural law is atype of amatrix, which should be duplicated by the legislator in order to prevent unfair laws. Following the Latin maxim: “Lex iniusta non est lex” “Unfair law is not alaw”, legislator must take into account all non-specified norms of the higher order. According to the authors of this article, in the modern times the natural law rational­ism is rather apparent, and its religious foundations will not necessarily be accepted in the culturally plural [multicultural?] society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document