In 1958, the Harvard Law Review published a now-famous debate between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller regarding the proposed connection between law and morality. Whereas Hart defended a broadly positivist conception of law, Fuller advanced a kind of natural law theory that has greatly influenced judicial interpretation in the United States. This paper examines the debate and provides a commentary in light of the natural law theory of Thomas Aquinas. Whereas it is not surprising that Aquinas would reject (...) the central tenets of Hart’s positivism, it also appears he would have deep misgivings about the position defended by Professor Fuller, and particularly Fuller’s understanding of how laws should be interpreted in light of morality. (shrink)

This paper examines Thomas Aquinas’s condemnation of usury. In the first section, the details of Thomas’s teaching are examined with special attention to the so-called “extrinsic titles” discussed in the Middle Ages as qualifications of the moral and legal strictures concerning moneylending. The reminder of the paper examines the particular extrinsic title of Lucrum Cessans (compensation for lost profit), which Thomas rejects, and attempts to square that rejection with other texts implying that compensation for lost profit is a requirement of (...) justice when taken outside the context of moneylending. The paper concludes with some possible modern applications of Thomas’s position. (shrink)

These are some of the many questions contemplated in these essays, which explore the contributions of nine major thinkers and traditions regarding the question of punitive justice.

Justifying the human institution of punishment has been a central theme in the history of moral and political philosophy. At no time has this been more apparent than at the present, where this question has evoked a great debate between two schools of thought, namely, utilitarianism and retributivism. This thesis firstly attempts to articulate the central questions underlying this debate and to articulate the powerful criticisms each side renders against one another. It is our thesis that, whereas each side seems (...) to be successful in pointing out the defects of their opponent, neither has been able to answer the most powerful criticisms rendered against them. The result of this, we argue, is that one must look beyond the contemporary debate to see the true meaning and justification of punishment within political life. This is possible either by construing a theory of punishment not yet considered by the tradition of political philosophy, or by rediscovering a theory of punishment articulated by one of that tradition's non-contemporary members. This thesis opts for the latter, and considers the contribution Thomas Aquinas can make to this great question. ;The thesis contains six chapters. The first chapter considers the roots of utilitarianism and retributivism by looking to the thought of Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Each thinker is introduced by a brief discussion of his moral and political thought as a whole followed by a treatment of his understanding of punishment. The second chapter is concerned more with the contemporary literature, and with the specific arguments of utilitarians and retributivists against one another. Chapter Three introduces the thought of Thomas Aquinas and is chiefly concerned with establishing the meaning of punishment in its widest moral, political, and theological significance. Chapter Four continues this discussion by considering divine punishment, a question not central to the contemporary debate but essential for understanding Thomas' contribution. Chapter Five considers Thomas' discussion of human punishment, or his understanding of punishment's role and justification within the human political order. Chapter Six concludes by discussing Thomas' teaching in light of the contemporary debate between utilitarians and retributivists, and by explaining his contribution to that debate. (shrink)

In this short monograph, Riccardo Saccenti surveys the various and competing interpretations of natural law and natural right from the late Middle Ages through the modern period. As “a survey,” the intention of this book is not so much to advance and defend a central thesis about natural law, but rather to paint a picture of how the various interpreters of natural law have responded to the most important primary texts and to one another. One of the issues with which (...) Saccenti is most concerned is the transition from the medieval understanding of natural law inspired by an Aristotelian concept of nature to a modern theory of natural individual rights. Where exactly does this transition begin and where is it more or less consummated? A reader of this book will be impressed by the complexity of this debate and the nuances of difference between its participants. Saccenti’s account of it succeeds in exposing the folly of overly simplistic readings of intellectual history that are ideologically motivated, and reminds us what a careful reading of primary and secondary sources can achieve. (shrink)