WEBVTT NOTE Intellectual Origins of Natural Rights 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.000 You know, having to talk right after Ralph Rehka, who's such a great speaker, I'm a little bit nervous, you know, because I'm not a great speaker. 2 00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:21.000 But I'm going to be talking to you about natural rights, and I'll make the case for natural law and natural rights in a very subtle manner, supposedly. 3 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:25.000 I'll try to make this, you know, I'll just, I won't push it, I won't be a fanatic at all. 4 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:35.000 I'll just say a few things, and at the end of at least four hours, because I'm going to talk today about the natural law tradition in antiquity in the Middle Ages. 5 00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:43.000 Then I'll be talking about the birth of economic science, and since I'm not an economist, I'll be talking again about natural rights, that tradition. 6 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:50.000 So the third lecture will be on natural rights, and supposedly I'll be talking about natural rights. 7 00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:00.000 In the end, I'll be talking about the anti-Federalist tradition until the Civil War, which could be dependent on natural rights ground, and I'll do exactly that. 8 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:08.000 So, you know, just don't jump at me, because we'll have time to discuss all the issues about natural rights and natural law. 9 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:19.000 And I do know that a lot of libertarians do not agree with this view, and they, like my friend Don Livingstone, I mean, he's a great scholar, I admire him very much, 10 00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:24.000 I'm not going to try to convince him this time, but eventually, you know, in due time, I will. 11 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:31.000 And I just do not believe that libertarianism can be defended only on natural rights ground. 12 00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:36.000 I just think it's a better way to defend it. It's different. It's very forceful. 13 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:44.000 So, actually, when we talk about natural law, we talk about one of the oldest and the most discussed 14 00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:50.000 and the most discussed and most frequently used concepts of political theory. 15 00:01:50.000 --> 00:01:59.000 I mean, it went into oblivion for about a century or so, but now it's in vogue because of a guy named Robert Nozick, oddly enough. 16 00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:08.000 And I will entertain you, as I said, for about three or four hours on this topic, so dwelling on this concept and its history. 17 00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:16.000 So we better start with some very broad distinctions and generalizations, very general things. 18 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:22.000 And if you do not understand anything, it means I'm mispronouncing it, you know, because it's very simple. 19 00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:27.000 It's got to be very simple. If you do understand everything and just congratulate yourself, 20 00:02:27.000 --> 00:02:31.000 it doesn't mean I'm being just too basic. I mean, it means you know a lot. 21 00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:37.000 So, like, in general law, natural law concepts have assumed two forms. 22 00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:47.000 Now, one is the rules which are statements of the basic laws of the universe, or of man's constitution, or of social and political relationships. 23 00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:49.000 This is a very general meaning. 24 00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:56.000 And the second one, the most interesting one actually, is the principles of what is right. 25 00:02:56.000 --> 00:03:01.000 And the principles which are to be established if justice is to prevail. 26 00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:07.840 So it's very close and linked to the theory of justice, not Joan Roll's one, I mean, a different one, just... 27 00:03:08.900 --> 00:03:11.640 So in other words, natural law carries two meanings. 28 00:03:11.640 --> 00:03:20.200 It is a term indicating either the scientific laws of man and his environment, or the laws which should exist. 29 00:03:21.200 --> 00:03:30.260 The two meanings are usually very much related, as most thinkers derived from the observation of nature of man, certain laws that should be established. 30 00:03:30.260 --> 00:03:34.260 Once again, if justice is to prevail. 31 00:03:34.260 --> 00:03:51.260 And the doctrine of natural law was a major theme in the Western political thought from the 5th century before Christ until at least the end of the 18th century. 32 00:03:51.260 --> 00:04:21.260 and then I guess there's a new interest right now going on in the past 30 years but there was a great decline at the beginning of the 19th century so as a moral philosophy it played a central role in three important historical events the extension of the influence of the Roman civilization and law over Western Europe that was a key thing and then the fusion of Christianity and classical culture during the Middle Ages and the emergence of classical liberalism 33 00:04:21.260 --> 00:04:28.260 Naturalism from the 16th to the 18th century, which was definitely based on natural rights theory. 34 00:04:28.260 --> 00:04:35.260 So every great moment in the history of the West was marked by a peculiar interpretation of natural law. 35 00:04:35.260 --> 00:04:49.260 And actually it was the irrelevance of the natural law doctrine in the 20th century that must be considered at least one of the causes of the success of totalitarianism, hard and soft versions of it. 36 00:04:49.260 --> 00:04:54.260 When I say hard totalitarianism, it means it attacks the lives and properties of the people. 37 00:04:54.260 --> 00:04:57.260 It's soft when it attacks only the properties. 38 00:04:57.260 --> 00:05:02.260 So we're living under what I would call soft totalitarianism. 39 00:05:02.260 --> 00:05:07.260 And the criminal utopians and social planners of the past century had a great advantage 40 00:05:07.260 --> 00:05:14.260 in finding individuals that believed that they had no rights based on their very nature of human beings. 41 00:05:14.260 --> 00:05:18.260 It was a great advantage for them, at least in my point of view. 42 00:05:18.260 --> 00:05:24.100 And generally, the theory of natural law, as the words immediately suggest, has been 43 00:05:24.100 --> 00:05:29.460 used to provide a universal, rational standard to determine the nature and the limits of 44 00:05:29.460 --> 00:05:35.200 political obligation, and the evaluation of competing forms of government also, and also 45 00:05:35.200 --> 00:05:38.820 the relation of law and politics to morals. 46 00:05:38.820 --> 00:05:40.260 This is supposed to be very unscientific. 47 00:05:40.260 --> 00:05:46.860 I mean, if you want something scientific, you've got to sever everything from morals. 48 00:05:46.860 --> 00:05:53.420 Actually, natural law is not supposed to be scientific, because it's very closely related to morals. 49 00:05:53.420 --> 00:06:00.620 So the real quest that is behind almost every natural law doctrine is the quest for political order, 50 00:06:00.620 --> 00:06:09.660 firmly rooted in reason, in our moral understanding of it, or in the universe, in man, 51 00:06:09.660 --> 00:06:17.300 as opposed to a political order based on the will of the strongest of the best organized, 52 00:06:17.300 --> 00:06:21.780 which is usually what they call themselves the state. 53 00:06:21.780 --> 00:06:31.500 So that's really the quest of many natural law doctrine, you know, the quest for something 54 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:35.760 objectively rooted somewhere else from the will of man. 55 00:06:35.760 --> 00:06:44.760 So in this sense, the very opposite of natural law is the current view that laws are what the legislatures, as representative of the people, of course, want them to be. 56 00:06:44.760 --> 00:06:49.760 So law is whatever the sovereign says it is. 57 00:06:49.760 --> 00:07:02.760 So in most doctrines of natural law, we can find the belief that there exists, in nature and or human nature, a rational order which can provide intelligible value statements independently of human will, 58 00:07:02.760 --> 00:07:12.760 that are universal in application, unchangeable in their ultimate content, and morally mandatory on mankind, I'm sorry, humankind. 59 00:07:12.760 --> 00:07:18.760 With these generalizations, we can begin our discussion of natural law and history. 60 00:07:18.760 --> 00:07:23.760 So a good, very good, a very good starting point is Sophocles' Antigone. 61 00:07:23.760 --> 00:07:24.760 Antigone 62 00:07:24.760 --> 00:07:31.720 Now, Antigone, as most of you probably remember, was a woman whose brother Polonisus had attacked 63 00:07:31.720 --> 00:07:39.280 the city of thieves, and he was formerly a citizen of thieves, so that was treason, and 64 00:07:39.280 --> 00:07:44.680 had been killed in battle, and he lost, so they're victors, you know. 65 00:07:44.680 --> 00:07:51.320 For his treason, the tyrant Creon ordered that his body left to rot outside the gates, 66 00:07:51.320 --> 00:07:55.680 Unburied and unmoored, that was, you know, the law. 67 00:07:55.680 --> 00:07:59.480 And Antigone defied the tyrant's decree and buried her brother. 68 00:07:59.480 --> 00:08:05.520 And so she was brought before Creon, and she declared that a law made by mere men could 69 00:08:05.520 --> 00:08:12.040 not override the God's unwritten and unfailing laws, which had existed longer than anyone 70 00:08:12.040 --> 00:08:13.720 could say. 71 00:08:13.720 --> 00:08:18.680 And the passage is great because, let me read it to you, because it's really like the first 72 00:08:18.680 --> 00:08:21.680 Appearance of Clear Doctrine of Natural Law 73 00:08:21.680 --> 00:08:27.280 So, Creon is trying to be kind of polite at the beginning, and he says, 74 00:08:27.280 --> 00:08:30.280 Now tell me, Antigonus, straight yes or no? 75 00:08:30.280 --> 00:08:33.680 Did you know an addict had forbidden this? 76 00:08:33.680 --> 00:08:35.180 And she says, of course I knew. 77 00:08:35.180 --> 00:08:37.580 Was it not publicly proclaimed? 78 00:08:37.580 --> 00:08:40.880 So you chose flagrantry to disobey my law? 79 00:08:40.880 --> 00:08:45.380 Naturally, since God never promulgated such a law. 80 00:08:45.380 --> 00:08:59.020 Nor will you find that justice, mistress of the world below, publishes such laws to humankind. 81 00:08:59.020 --> 00:09:04.940 I never thought your mortal edicts had such force, they nullified the laws of heaven, 82 00:09:04.940 --> 00:09:10.780 which unwritten, not proclaimed, can boast the currency that everlasting is valid, in 83 00:09:10.780 --> 00:09:14.340 origin beyond the birth of man. 84 00:09:14.340 --> 00:09:44.340 This is like, I'm sorry I read it to you in English, I could have read it in Greek, but it's very interesting because it's like the first instance of a natural law, right doctrine, and it doesn't come from a philosopher, it comes from a person who used to write plays that enjoyed, I mean the people really enjoyed, so however it was up to the greatest philosophers of all time, the greatest philosopher of all times actually to render natural law 85 00:09:44.340 --> 00:09:46.340 The Central Theme of Political Philosophy 86 00:09:46.340 --> 00:09:48.340 And of course I'm talking about Aristotle 87 00:09:48.340 --> 00:09:56.340 And so many books, you know, and conflicting interpretations of Aristotle came out that I'll give you a very simple one 88 00:09:56.340 --> 00:09:58.340 And it's very simple because it's mine 89 00:09:58.340 --> 00:10:00.340 And it's, but it's correct 90 00:10:00.340 --> 00:10:02.340 So don't, don't, don't bother 91 00:10:02.340 --> 00:10:04.340 You know, as Wittgenstein said, 92 00:10:04.340 --> 00:10:06.340 Simplex sigillum veri 93 00:10:06.340 --> 00:10:08.340 Simplicity means it's true, you know 94 00:10:08.340 --> 00:10:12.340 So when you see something too, too much complex 95 00:10:12.340 --> 00:10:40.340 Now, he wrote The Politics, or politics, in 340-330, before crisis had ever been dated, and this is pretty much uncontroversial, and the focus of his political thought is actually the polis, what we now call the city-state, but it should be called the free state, or the political community, as there was no such thing as a free state. 96 00:10:40.340 --> 00:10:47.940 through the political community as there was no state, there was no sovereignty, there was nothing like that in ancient times, not even in medieval times. 97 00:10:47.940 --> 00:10:54.740 I mean, sometimes they used the state as a genetic concept to convey certain ideas, but the state is only modern. 98 00:10:54.740 --> 00:11:03.940 So, politics is the science of polis, of the polis of this, we should call it the free state, the free city, of this free city. 99 00:11:03.940 --> 00:11:10.340 So the two doctrines that Aristotle defends are that human beings are political animals, 100 00:11:10.340 --> 00:11:19.600 zon politikon, and that polis exists by nature, so the natural condition is for men and for 101 00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:31.860 political animals to be in the polis, which plural is polis. 102 00:11:31.860 --> 00:11:49.860 Now, these claims presuppose that the polis is a community in which individuals must cooperate in order to attain self-sufficiency and thereby lead what he called the good life, which was a very important concept for all Greek thinkers. 103 00:11:49.860 --> 00:11:54.660 This is a very classic theme, you know, the good life or old ancient thought. 104 00:11:54.660 --> 00:12:00.920 The idea of leading a good life and no political thinker ever thought this could be attained 105 00:12:00.920 --> 00:12:07.020 outside of the policy, of the polis, so the political community was really like very important 106 00:12:07.020 --> 00:12:08.020 for the people. 107 00:12:08.020 --> 00:12:13.100 It was to be outcasted from the political community was an amount to be dead, it was 108 00:12:13.100 --> 00:12:15.620 pretty much the same thing for a lot of people. 109 00:12:15.620 --> 00:12:22.980 So according to Aristotle, politics is intended to provide guidance to politicians and lawgivers, 110 00:12:22.980 --> 00:12:26.900 as it is a practical science, it's not a theoretical science. 111 00:12:26.900 --> 00:12:28.820 And again, it's a science of the polis. 112 00:12:28.820 --> 00:12:35.540 And the politicians should bring the polis into a natural condition or maintain it in 113 00:12:35.540 --> 00:12:36.980 such a condition. 114 00:12:36.980 --> 00:12:41.320 So the important thing is that the polis must be in a natural condition, and we'll see 115 00:12:41.320 --> 00:12:44.100 in a minute what it means. 116 00:12:44.100 --> 00:12:51.380 And he calls this, what the politicians should do with the polis, the polis of our prayers. 117 00:12:51.380 --> 00:12:57.020 The polis of our prayers is the polis that is in a natural condition. 118 00:12:57.020 --> 00:13:05.900 And a polis is in a natural condition when it aims at justice, a justice on one side 119 00:13:05.900 --> 00:13:08.420 and the common advantage on the other. 120 00:13:08.420 --> 00:13:15.500 So the basic problem of politics is actually a dispute over who in the polis has a just 121 00:13:15.500 --> 00:13:22.260 claim or right to be a citizen, and over what rights the citizens should have. 122 00:13:22.260 --> 00:13:28.860 Now I'm talking about rights in ancient Greece, rights in the political discourse of Aristotle, 123 00:13:28.860 --> 00:13:31.100 and a lot of people would not agree. 124 00:13:31.100 --> 00:13:36.340 Some scholars would disagree because they believe that rights talk is the byproduct 125 00:13:36.340 --> 00:13:47.840 of Modernity, in a certain sense, it's a by-product of classical liberalism, and it couldn't be used by the ancients, but you'll have to trust me on this. 126 00:13:47.840 --> 00:13:55.840 Actually, Aristotle is talking about rights, and all individual rights are based on justice and nature. 127 00:13:55.840 --> 00:14:05.340 He calls them claims, but as a citizen of the polis, you do have claims against the polis, but he's actually talking about rights. 128 00:14:05.340 --> 00:14:21.140 But the real difference between modern natural rights theories and Aristotle's doctrine is that the Greek philosopher would never conceive individuals in a state of nature in which they already possess a set of natural rights. 129 00:14:21.140 --> 00:14:29.640 To him, as I said, the policy is a natural existing phenomenon, which may be in a natural or unnatural condition. 130 00:14:29.640 --> 00:14:41.200 And when the polis is in a natural condition, it is governed according to justice, also natural, and its citizens possess rights based on nature again. 131 00:14:41.200 --> 00:14:46.480 So it's all natural, the polis, the citizens, their rights, and everything else. 132 00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:54.720 The real difference between modern rights talk is that he never thought there could exist individuals in the state of nature. 133 00:14:54.720 --> 00:14:58.200 He never thought of the state of nature without a polis. 134 00:14:58.200 --> 00:15:03.200 Actually, he thought the state of nature was a policy in a natural state. 135 00:15:09.200 --> 00:15:15.200 So when the policy is in a natural condition, it is governed according to justice. 136 00:15:15.200 --> 00:15:24.200 And in this sense, we may view Aristotle as an ancestor of the natural rights tradition, but in a very qualified sense. 137 00:15:24.200 --> 00:15:34.200 and all these rights are actually claimed by individuals as member of the policy, of the polis, as a cooperative association 138 00:15:34.200 --> 00:15:38.200 and of course there's a clear difference between him and the modern thinkers 139 00:15:38.200 --> 00:15:44.200 but I would say that individuality plays a crucial role in his political philosophy as well 140 00:15:44.200 --> 00:15:51.200 and this becomes very clear if we analyze his view of property and of property rights 141 00:15:51.200 --> 00:15:58.700 Aristotle goes to a full vindication of the right of private property in the second book of the politics. 142 00:15:58.700 --> 00:16:04.200 And then he talks about property rights all over his works, actually. 143 00:16:04.200 --> 00:16:13.200 And he takes a clear stand against Plato and Socrates, who believed that children, women and property ought to be common. 144 00:16:13.200 --> 00:16:18.200 Who believed in the community of women. Not a bad idea, but... 145 00:16:18.200 --> 00:16:48.200 but anyway especially when you're young I mean you're in college I mean you get excited about it but then you grow up and there are several arguments that he employs to defend the legitimacy of private property and I'm not going to go through that otherwise I wouldn't have time to talk about anything else but that range you know from utilitarian arguments instrumentality and 146 00:16:48.200 --> 00:16:55.440 and from the eudemonistic argument which is based on happiness, you know, the idea that 147 00:16:55.440 --> 00:17:01.480 the property brings happiness and so on, and all sorts of justifications of property. 148 00:17:01.480 --> 00:17:09.080 But one must know that Aristotle discusses three schemes of property, which is private 149 00:17:09.080 --> 00:17:15.500 property common use, and that's the one he prefers, he favors. 150 00:17:15.500 --> 00:17:22.900 and then is a common property, private use, and the third one is common property, common 151 00:17:22.900 --> 00:17:23.900 use. 152 00:17:23.900 --> 00:17:27.140 Now, there's one missing, isn't there? 153 00:17:27.140 --> 00:17:31.260 It's the one I favor and the one most of us favor. 154 00:17:31.260 --> 00:17:37.980 So he leaves out private property, private use, and it's certainly the one that most 155 00:17:37.980 --> 00:17:39.500 of us would prefer. 156 00:17:39.500 --> 00:17:45.420 However, you've got to remember that Aristotle had anticipated the noted tragedy of the commons 157 00:17:45.420 --> 00:17:53.420 As he points out that I cannot feel for the community's resources what I feel for myself and my own things. 158 00:17:53.420 --> 00:18:03.420 As the policy or the polis in his thought is prior to the individual, clearly private property can be regulated by the polis. 159 00:18:03.420 --> 00:18:08.420 However, it must be owned privately, never in common. 160 00:18:08.420 --> 00:18:17.420 Moreover, he criticizes confiscation by democratic majorities of the property of the wealthy citizens, 161 00:18:17.420 --> 00:18:25.420 and explicitly rejects the conventionalist argument that whatever law the majority decides to enact is just, 162 00:18:25.420 --> 00:18:30.420 objecting that confiscation is unjust even if the majority supports it. 163 00:18:30.420 --> 00:18:44.620 And thus, the property owner has a claim of justice. 164 00:18:44.620 --> 00:18:50.220 Now a claim of justice in Aristotle's talk would be very similar to what we might call 165 00:18:50.220 --> 00:18:51.220 a right. 166 00:18:51.220 --> 00:18:58.420 And plus, a claim of justice is definitely based on nature. 167 00:18:58.420 --> 00:19:05.200 And so he's got a right against other citizens which is violated by the law of confiscation. 168 00:19:05.200 --> 00:19:10.380 And the best constitution, in his opinion, is actually the one that respects the property 169 00:19:10.380 --> 00:19:11.380 of the citizens. 170 00:19:11.380 --> 00:19:15.940 In this sense, I consider him very, very modern. 171 00:19:15.940 --> 00:19:20.900 But the theory that there is a law which is above the power of man to alter found his 172 00:19:20.900 --> 00:19:24.400 best defender in the Roman world. 173 00:19:24.400 --> 00:19:26.140 And this defender was Cicero. 174 00:19:26.140 --> 00:19:32.140 He clearly stated a lot of things that were to become, like, common knowledge in this tradition of thought. 175 00:19:35.140 --> 00:19:39.140 Sorry, I'm a great drinker of water in the morning. 176 00:19:39.140 --> 00:19:48.140 And so, actually, Cicero's discussion of the nature of the law is probably the best we find in antiquity. 177 00:19:48.140 --> 00:19:55.140 And it was the one that went through, in scholastic times as well, and it went on, because Cicero was a stoic. 178 00:19:55.140 --> 00:20:25.140 I mean, he was a follower of the stoic tradition, and so he used to use the word God instead of gods several times, so it's not like the Christians were fooled, they certainly knew what he was talking about, but they could quote him talking about God and not the gods, because he usually talked about God, but he meant nature, of course, that's not Cicero. And Cicero was, as I said, a stoic, and the stoics would be a very important bridge to study in order to understand natural law 179 00:20:25.140 --> 00:20:49.140 and to them nature was objective reason, the divine element in the universe and it was by virtue of man's rational power that he could come to understand the reason that is in the universe and live according to it and according to it and according to the laws of nature. 180 00:20:49.140 --> 00:21:01.640 So human laws, and this was the first time that was said, human laws should approximate as much as possible the laws of nature and the teachings of nature. 181 00:21:01.640 --> 00:21:16.540 So this general, historic point of view is summed up very nicely by Cicero in his discussion of the nature of the law, and the book is the very famous De Legibus, which means, of course, on laws. 182 00:21:16.540 --> 00:21:30.940 And he says, all of these things about which learned men dispute, there is none more important than clearly to understand that we are born for justice, and that right is founded not in opinion, but in nature. 183 00:21:30.940 --> 00:21:40.140 There is indeed a true law, right reason, now he uses this word, this expression, right reason for a true law. 184 00:21:40.140 --> 00:22:10.140 Agreeing with nature, and diffused among all, unchanging, everlasting, which calls to duty by commanding, deters from wrong by forbidding, it is not allowable to alter this law, nor to deviate from it, nor can it be abrogated, nor can we be released from this law either by the Senate or by the people, nor is any person required to 185 00:22:10.140 --> 00:22:37.140 Nor is it one law at Rome and another at Athens, one law today and another hereafter, but the same law, everlasting and unchangeable, will bind all nations and all times, and there will be one common Lord and ruler of all, that is God, the framer and proposer of this law. 186 00:22:40.140 --> 00:22:58.140 Well, and of course, he meant nature by God, but he used God and God's interchangeably sometimes, you know, like Spain, lip-homage to the religion that he was born with, but he doesn't really care very much. 187 00:22:58.140 --> 00:23:28.140 So the Christian world was very receptive to this concept and especially because of the idea of the sacred individuality and the uniqueness of every person and Christianity just was pretty much born with the idea and the concept of natural law and one must think of Saint Paul who was probably the first to use the expression written on the heart referring to the law of nature 188 00:23:28.140 --> 00:23:32.300 and of course the writer of this law was God, that's very simple to understand. 189 00:23:32.300 --> 00:23:40.540 And then you have in the fourth century the emperor Theodosius, who ordered the bishop of Milan, 190 00:23:40.540 --> 00:23:50.460 who happens to be also the patron of Milan, Santimbros, to hand over his cathedral to the empire. 191 00:23:50.460 --> 00:23:53.100 That was an order, a decree, you had to do that. 192 00:23:53.100 --> 00:24:00.540 And Sannebrose told him, by no law you can violate the house of a private man. 193 00:24:00.540 --> 00:24:03.740 Do you think that the house of God may be taken away? 194 00:24:03.740 --> 00:24:10.900 And then he goes on to curse him, and using words I will not repeat. 195 00:24:10.900 --> 00:24:18.020 So this episode actually is considered to be the starting point of the millennial struggle of the church and political power. 196 00:24:18.020 --> 00:24:48.020 Actually, even longer than that, which actually, as Ralph Rago clearly stated, prevented absolute power from arising. Thus, living room for autonomous institutions to develop, and to the living room for what we call, generally speaking, civil society, but was actually markets and associations and oath-based relationships, universities, like the one in Pavia, which was founded in 931. 197 00:24:48.020 --> 00:24:56.020 1931, that's pretty amazing. It's never been recognized by Paris and Bologna, but that's the thing. 198 00:24:56.020 --> 00:25:04.020 And it was during the dark times of the Middle Ages, so we had all this, the birth of civil society. 199 00:25:04.020 --> 00:25:10.020 But actually Christian thought is also at the core of our own idea of the individual, 200 00:25:10.020 --> 00:25:38.020 So clearly, the idea that every person has a soul, and no matter how similar she may look to any other human beings, she is unique and irreplaceable in the eyes of God, if not of her loved ones. 201 00:25:38.020 --> 00:25:45.020 is really a notion that the classical world never knew and never thought was important at all. 202 00:25:45.020 --> 00:25:49.020 It didn't exist in the classical world. That came definitely with Christianity. 203 00:25:49.020 --> 00:25:57.020 And actually, I wanted to quote a statement by Rothbard, which I forgot. 204 00:25:57.020 --> 00:26:04.020 Can you give me one minute to show the link that there is between modern natural rights theories 205 00:26:04.020 --> 00:26:10.020 and this idea, this Christian idea, it's right over there, I'll get it to you, just one second. 206 00:26:10.020 --> 00:26:13.020 I forgot the quote. 207 00:26:13.020 --> 00:26:16.020 I'll give you me third. 208 00:26:28.020 --> 00:26:30.020 I'll find it. 209 00:26:30.020 --> 00:26:38.020 We'll be talking, as I said, we'll be talking about natural rights for quite a while, so I'll find it. 210 00:26:38.020 --> 00:26:46.020 But anyway, it's a very Christian idea. 211 00:26:46.020 --> 00:26:51.020 You're going to have to stay there for four hours, don't move. 212 00:26:51.020 --> 00:27:04.020 And so, actually, it is what in the works of Thomas Aquinas that we find the best expression of Christian natural law and his tradition. 213 00:27:04.020 --> 00:27:09.020 And I will be very quick on that as we do not have much time left. 214 00:27:09.020 --> 00:27:12.520 But it would deserve certainly a lot of attention. 215 00:27:12.520 --> 00:27:18.520 And it's been often compared to a cathedral, you know, his way of thinking. 216 00:27:18.520 --> 00:27:48.520 You have to think that Aquinas wrote about 20,000 pages in his own life, and the Summa, his best, smile yourself, is like 3,000 pages, and everyone, it's considered to be like a cathedral, you know, and the pinnacle, definitely, is the natural law doctrine, and the idea, certainly, that there is a natural law, and that man are bound by it, 217 00:27:48.520 --> 00:28:02.520 So, this Christian notion of natural law is definitely to be found in the Summa, written in the 13th century, as you all know. 218 00:28:02.520 --> 00:28:12.520 The greatest Christian philosopher of all time, as Ralph Rehka said, even sanctioned rebellion. 219 00:28:12.520 --> 00:28:19.520 I don't know whether according to him you could kill or not the tyrant, but this is what he said. 220 00:28:19.520 --> 00:28:25.520 A king who is unfaithful to his duties forfeits his claim to obedience. 221 00:28:25.520 --> 00:28:38.520 So I mean the first thing you could do, there's no way you can, if he is against divine law or natural law, if he does anything against these laws, then there's no reason to obey him. 222 00:28:38.520 --> 00:28:45.520 It is not rebellion to depose him, for he is himself a rebel. 223 00:28:45.520 --> 00:28:48.520 So these words are very strong. 224 00:28:48.520 --> 00:28:59.520 I mean, there's nothing comparable to it, either in Montana or at the time, of course, or anywhere else on earth. 225 00:28:59.520 --> 00:29:05.520 And the time during which Thomas wrote was a time of ferment, very good ferment, 226 00:29:05.520 --> 00:29:19.520 Because previously unavailable works of Aristotle had come to Europe from the Middle East and, well, I don't want to sound too biased, but it seems to me like the greatest contribution the Middle East ever made to culture. 227 00:29:19.520 --> 00:29:30.520 And Thomas actually calls Aristotle the philosopher in the Summa. I mean, he's not like Aristotle, the greatest philosopher. He's the philosopher. 228 00:29:30.520 --> 00:29:46.520 So he is like... Well, did you know how the Summa works? It's based on questions, you know, and he says, for instance, whether natural contingents are subject to the eternal law, fifth article. 229 00:29:46.520 --> 00:29:53.520 So this is a question. Then he goes objection one, objection two, objection three, usually three, sometimes it's four. 230 00:29:53.520 --> 00:29:59.680 and but he I mean he doesn't just make a mockery out of his adversaries you know 231 00:29:59.680 --> 00:30:03.840 it just he takes the objections very seriously and then he says on the 232 00:30:03.840 --> 00:30:08.600 contrary it is written and he goes to the sacred scriptures and then he says I 233 00:30:08.600 --> 00:30:15.400 answer that and this is a truth you know for according to him and then he goes on 234 00:30:15.400 --> 00:30:19.760 to counter and he says reply to objection one reply to objection two 235 00:30:19.760 --> 00:30:31.760 Reply to Objection 3. And then the argument is made. Now, in the 13th century, this way of reasoning was thought to be pretty good, scholasticism. 236 00:30:31.760 --> 00:30:40.760 I don't know why we abandoned it. I mean, it seems a perfect way, you know, as long as you make a mockery of objections and so on. 237 00:30:40.760 --> 00:30:45.760 I mean, it would be great to have articles written like this. It would be at least clear. 238 00:30:45.760 --> 00:31:12.640 Thomas is a set called Aristotle the Philosopher, and not just one of the philosophers. Aquinas' 239 00:31:12.640 --> 00:31:17.760 Thomas' work was intended as a synthesis of philosophy and the Christian faith. 240 00:31:17.760 --> 00:31:23.880 But of course to him theology was the master and philosophy the servant. 241 00:31:23.880 --> 00:31:29.960 Now for us it may be difficult to understand this concept, but for Thomas, whose doctrine 242 00:31:29.960 --> 00:31:38.080 is also called teleological, that is to say that it's directed towards an end, all things 243 00:31:38.080 --> 00:31:45.660 actually have within themselves, by their very nature, principles which produce actions 244 00:31:45.660 --> 00:31:49.140 and direct it to its proper end. 245 00:31:49.140 --> 00:31:55.600 So in this sense it's teleological because there's the end for mankind, there's the end 246 00:31:55.600 --> 00:32:01.540 for every single man, and built in the very nature of man, there are principles which, 247 00:32:01.540 --> 00:32:07.400 if accordingly followed, will just lead them to its proper nature and its proper finality, 248 00:32:07.400 --> 00:32:17.400 So for him, actually, there was no contradiction between philosophy and theology because they both came from God. 249 00:32:17.400 --> 00:32:23.400 One was God's written word and the other one was God implanted reason in the human mind. 250 00:32:23.400 --> 00:32:26.400 So there was no contradiction between faith and reason. 251 00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:33.400 All this discussion that took place later on about the contradictions between faith and reason, of course, 252 00:32:33.400 --> 00:33:02.400 Natural law is none other than the concept naturally impressed upon man by which he is guided towards suitable actions in the activities proper to him. 253 00:33:02.400 --> 00:33:09.200 And this is the extension to men of the intrinsic finality or tendency to an end that pervades 254 00:33:09.200 --> 00:33:10.800 all nature. 255 00:33:10.800 --> 00:33:11.800 Every creature has it. 256 00:33:11.800 --> 00:33:15.560 The thing is, the other creatures don't think. 257 00:33:15.560 --> 00:33:20.960 However, the precepts of natural law are also rational judgments. 258 00:33:20.960 --> 00:33:27.280 So it is the light of reason by which we discern that has to be done. 259 00:33:27.280 --> 00:33:33.680 It is in the light, you know, in this light of reason, and he calls actually natural law 260 00:33:33.680 --> 00:33:38.760 the light of reason in certain places, he calls the natural law this way. 261 00:33:38.760 --> 00:33:44.800 And natural law is also an expression of the eternal law, and it is what makes reason the 262 00:33:44.800 --> 00:33:46.440 right reason. 263 00:33:46.440 --> 00:33:51.680 Why do we know that reason is not wrong and it's really the right reason? 264 00:33:51.680 --> 00:33:55.040 Because there is a natural law behind it. 265 00:33:55.040 --> 00:33:59.800 And he's also to be found in the Ten Commandments, in the Decalogue. 266 00:33:59.800 --> 00:34:05.920 He believes that some of, because, well, man happens to be not only a sinner, but a person 267 00:34:05.920 --> 00:34:09.000 who tends to err a lot. 268 00:34:09.000 --> 00:34:14.840 So God, God gave him the Ten Commandments just to specify certain things. 269 00:34:14.840 --> 00:34:18.600 And the Ten Commandments are part of natural law. 270 00:34:18.600 --> 00:34:23.560 They're not, oh, the natural law that you can think about, but they're a part. 271 00:34:23.560 --> 00:34:30.600 That's like God helping man, you know, to understand better what he means. 272 00:34:30.600 --> 00:34:37.240 So the divine law is given to man as a help to the natural law, in this sense. 273 00:34:37.240 --> 00:34:43.560 And we can see a strong parallel with this philosophy and theology relationship. 274 00:34:43.560 --> 00:34:50.360 So the strong idea is that rational creatures, by nature and in consequence of their dignity, 275 00:34:50.360 --> 00:34:53.680 have a special position in the ordering of things. 276 00:34:53.680 --> 00:35:00.320 In fact, while divine providence governs irrational creatures, of course, and unfortunately we're 277 00:35:00.320 --> 00:35:07.680 not talking about socialists or social planners and so on, they're considered to be rational 278 00:35:07.680 --> 00:35:11.780 creatures anyway, we're just talking about animals, simply animals. 279 00:35:11.780 --> 00:35:18.360 But actually creatures who direct their own actions need what he says, the check of law. 280 00:35:18.360 --> 00:35:26.360 They need the check of law. However, though positive law conspicuously locks the universality of the natural law. 281 00:35:26.360 --> 00:35:31.360 So its validity depends directly on natural law. 282 00:35:31.360 --> 00:35:40.360 And for instance, while natural law says that theft is a crime, and also a mortal sin, according to St. Thomas. 283 00:35:40.360 --> 00:35:46.360 You know, it says a mortal sin. It's not like, I don't know how this Catholics could go on and say that robbing people is fine. 284 00:35:46.360 --> 00:36:00.360 Saint Thomas said it's a mortal thing, robbery. Positive law is to decide the punishment. You could hang the guy, cut a couple of hands, do whatever you want with the guy, but that's part of the positive law. 285 00:36:00.360 --> 00:36:12.360 And finally, in the Summa, we have the highest conception of natural law, which is defined as the participation of the eternal law in a rational creature. 286 00:36:12.360 --> 00:36:23.360 Question 91, if you want to take a look at it, so it's the participation of the eternal law in a rational creature, 287 00:36:23.360 --> 00:36:28.360 because you have eternal law, divine law and natural law in that order. 288 00:36:28.360 --> 00:36:38.360 In Question 91, he talks of the various forms of law, eternal law, natural law, human law, divine law and the law of sin. 289 00:36:38.360 --> 00:36:46.260 So, eternal law is divine providence, and the way in which God has fashioned and ordered his creation. 290 00:36:46.260 --> 00:36:52.760 In other words, it's like God's plan for mankind. That would be divine law. I'm sorry, humankind. 291 00:36:54.760 --> 00:36:58.760 And so, it's her plan for humankind. 292 00:37:00.260 --> 00:37:07.560 And natural law is the peculiar human participation in eternal law, in that kind of law. 293 00:37:07.560 --> 00:37:19.560 So it's like the peculiar human participation in the plan of God, and the plan of God was actually to have man, and his greatest creature supposedly, as a rational animal. 294 00:37:19.560 --> 00:37:28.560 And also, according to the philosopher Anacartes Aquinas as well, as a social animal, not a political one, a social. 295 00:37:28.560 --> 00:37:33.560 You know, zon politikon could be translated political animal or social animal. 296 00:37:33.560 --> 00:37:39.160 The status people tend to translate it as political animal, I'd rather say social, cooperative, 297 00:37:39.160 --> 00:37:44.360 the free market is the kind of cooperation that Sir Leonhard Staudte would have loved. 298 00:37:44.360 --> 00:37:48.960 But anyway, natural law is not God's will. 299 00:37:48.960 --> 00:37:54.760 Some people at the time thought that it was very simple, that it was God's will. 300 00:37:54.760 --> 00:38:01.360 But, you know, like as a lot of scientists would say later, God's will couldn't make two into five. 301 00:38:01.360 --> 00:38:03.360 There's no way he could do that. 302 00:38:03.360 --> 00:38:08.160 and the same thing actually argued for St. Thomas. 303 00:38:08.260 --> 00:38:12.160 So it is not God's will, but it's really God's plan for mankind. 304 00:38:12.260 --> 00:38:16.360 And in a certain peculiar sense, it is what we would call freedom. 305 00:38:16.460 --> 00:38:23.260 The fact that mankind and individual men and women are free to choose 306 00:38:23.360 --> 00:38:25.660 whatever they want in their own plans. 307 00:38:25.760 --> 00:38:28.560 And now, the last thing I'm going to say is 308 00:38:28.560 --> 00:38:38.560 Why so many libertarians are at odds, do not like this kind of natural law, especially the Aquinas version of it? 309 00:38:38.560 --> 00:38:42.560 Well, first of all, because it's been exploited a lot by communitarians. 310 00:38:42.560 --> 00:38:51.560 And so a lot of libertarians didn't read the original stuff, and so they believed that it's simply communitarian. 311 00:38:51.560 --> 00:38:57.560 I mean, communitarian in the sense of McIntyre and that kind of stuff, you know, common contemporary thing. 312 00:38:57.560 --> 00:39:09.560 There's one reason for it. He speaks a lot about the common good and that's why he's been exploited by the communitarians. 313 00:39:09.560 --> 00:39:15.560 However, actually when he wrote, you have to keep in mind one thing, there was no state. 314 00:39:15.560 --> 00:39:19.560 There was nothing like the coercion or monopoly of coercion that we do know today. 315 00:39:19.560 --> 00:39:22.560 There was nothing like that. There was a lot of diffusion of power. 316 00:39:22.560 --> 00:39:29.560 So when he was talking about the common good and the need we have to cooperate with society and win society, 317 00:39:29.560 --> 00:39:32.560 he didn't have in mind taxes or anything like that. 318 00:39:32.560 --> 00:39:36.560 He didn't have in mind anything like being coerced to do that. 319 00:39:36.560 --> 00:39:38.560 He just said that was natural. 320 00:39:38.560 --> 00:39:45.560 And so Aquinas actually never hinted that one could pursue the common good using coercion 321 00:39:45.560 --> 00:39:49.560 or confiscated legitimately owned private property. 322 00:39:49.560 --> 00:39:56.840 So, cooperation and social bonds are essential to his theory, but so they are for libertarians. 323 00:39:56.840 --> 00:40:02.520 And it is my contention that if Thomas were alive, he'd realize immediately how the common 324 00:40:02.520 --> 00:40:08.520 good has several friends, among which we can definitely count the free market, and one 325 00:40:08.520 --> 00:40:12.220 single enemy, the state. 326 00:40:12.220 --> 00:40:18.480 And although the state, or I mean people on behalf of it, used to talk a lot about the 327 00:40:18.480 --> 00:40:30.480 about the common good, the very concept, the very idea of the state actually has obliterated any notion of natural law and natural order 328 00:40:30.480 --> 00:40:38.480 and I believe that the communitarian exploitation of scholasticism in general and of Aquinas in particular is totally misleading 329 00:40:38.480 --> 00:40:47.480 in fact the greatest medieval philosopher praised community only as he was convinced that it served the individual 330 00:40:47.480 --> 00:40:54.720 that was in the great interest of the individual to be part of a community and he was taking 331 00:40:54.720 --> 00:41:03.340 the common Aristotelian standard from which only fools and naves can derive a moral duty 332 00:41:03.340 --> 00:41:06.700 to robbery that is taxation. 333 00:41:07.700 --> 00:41:09.700 Thank you very much.