Thursday, May 23, 2013

chapter three jurisprudence lecture note


Anteneh.G
 
Chapter Three

Revival of NL

NL was dominated by other theories like positivism but there were some developments in 20th century which cause the revival of NL.

ü  Nazi’s atrocity

ü  Vast violations of natural rights

ü  Development of scientific inventions

The Neo-Scholastic movement is a 20th century development of thought based on the jurisprudential ideology associated primarily with St Thomas Aquinas. The effect of the movement on contemporary jurisprudence has been to revive interest in the application of natural law doctrine to life in our times.

ü  Cavanaugh – Dabin – Rommen – Le Fur – Renard –Maritain – Adler – Lucey

Neo-Scholasticism comprises several philosophies founded upon medieval Scholasticism (an endeavor to discover ‘the whole of attainable truth’ through Catholic doctrine). Particularly prominent within the Neo-Scholastic school is Neo-Thomism which, in relation to jurisprudence, is concerned with the development and adaptation of the teachings on natural law enunciated by St Thomas Aquinas.

ü  He had defined law as ‘an ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has the care of the community, and promulgated’, and considered ‘natural law’ to be derived from Divine law as revealed in man’s reason.

Two Prominent Neo-scholastics L. Fuller and John Finnis

Fuller

1.     Morality of Aspiration and of Duty

Fuller believed that morality has been for long confused through a failure adequately to distinguish between two levels of morality--moralities of ‘aspiration’ and of ‘duty’.

A.    The morality of ‘duty’ - minimum standard which must be attained

ü  It lays down the basic rules without which an ordered society is impossible, or without which an ordered society directed toward certain specific goals must fail of its mark.

B.     The morality of ‘aspiration’ is a goal of excellence, or even perfection closely related to the platonic ideal

ü  The morality of aspiration…is the morality of the Good Life, of excellence, of the fullest realization of human powers…Where the morality of aspiration starts at the top of human achievement, the morality of duty starts at the bottom.

According to Fuller, the appropriate standard of evaluation in the analysis of law, in terms of its claim to be ‘law’, is one of ‘duty’ rather than ‘aspiration’.

 One may aspire to excellence but the standard of ‘duty’ is the minimum required for viable social order so that failure to achieve it is not merely, in some sense or to some degree, a lapse but is actually a wrong.

Fuller’s analysis that it is not the business of law to prescribe for excellence but rather to ensure the minimum baseline

ü  But this goes to the root of the question which may be raised upon the claim of the theory fully to fit into a naturalist context.

ü  Rather minimalist moral analysis

ü  Law cannot make people ‘good’ but rather establish a base for the inhibition of ‘badness’ from which a good life may develop.

2.     Procedural NL

ü  Early conceptions by Radbruch

He was originally been positivist- the validity of a law depends in no way on its content.

The atrocity of the Nazi regime makes him to conclude that no law could be regarded as valid if it contravened with certain basic principles of morality. He noted the way in which obedience to a posited law by the legal profession had assisted the perpetration of the horrors of the Nazi regime. Thus the atrocity was due to:-

ü  Failure of a law to fulfill certain basic procedural principles

ü  Blind obedience

 

ü  King Rex Law

Rex was hypothetical king, who determined to reform his country’s legal system,

ü  Planed to repeal all existing laws and replaced it,

ü  He found himself incapable of formulating the general principles necessary to cover specific problems,

ü  Decide to litigate all disputes that arose by himself,

ü  Heard numerous cases, but no pattern was to be discerned,

ü  Thus he undertook a course of study on making generalizations and prepare a lengthy document and made it a state secret,

ü  The people needed to know in advance the principles, thus he decide to publish laws,

ü  Now accessible however no part could be understood either by laymen or lawyers, thus ordered experts to revise the code so as to leave the substance intact but clarify the wording,

ü  When this was accomplished, the code was a mass of contradictions, each provision being nullified by some other,

ü  That the code should be revised to remove the previous contradictions. The new code was a masterpiece of draftsmanship.

ü  However, through time its provisions had been overtaken by events, thus amendments began to be made daily,

ü  Otherwise, Rex resumed the sole judicial role,

ü  But with time, there was no link between Rex’s decisions and the provisions of the code.

Based on this, Fuller identified eight defects illustrated by Rex’s mistakes and has put eight Law Making Criteria (inner morality of law)

ü  A system of government that lacks what he terms ‘inner morality of law’ cannot constitute a legal system, the system lacking the very characteristic – order – that is a sine qua non of a legal system.

 

The Inner Morality of Law------------eight qualities of excellence.


  1. Generality (not made ad hoc or for temporary purpose only)
  2. Published
  3. Prospective, not retroactive
  4. Intelligible (clear or understandable)
  5. Consistent
  6. Capable of being complied with
  7. Endure without undue changes
  8. Applied in the administration of the society

However, the word ‘morality’ is misleading. As we know the word in natural law camp, it carries ethical connotations, yet none are intended by Fuller.

ü  According to him morality is inner character of a legal system, without which a system cannot properly be regarded as a legal system.

Fidelity to law

ü  Complementing the concept of inner morality, duty to obey only where the features that make up the inner morality of law are present. 

Is Fuller a natural lawyer?

ü  Imagine a law that required all children of ten who were left-handed to be executed.

·         Under mainstream natural law thinking a law is not a valid law if it conflicts with a higher moral code.

·         For Fuller a law is not valid if it forms part of a purported legal system that fails to comply with a higher code, the code in Fuller’s case, however, being one based not on ethical values, but on values stemming from rationality and procedural accuracy.

ü  Thus we may conclude that Fuller is one leg in natural and the other outside

·         validity by reference to an outside standard……………Natural

·         the standard lacks ethical connotations…………….Outside

 


Criticism on Fuller


Fuller……….Evil aims lack ‘logic’ and ‘coherence’ that moral aims have. ‘Coherence’ of the laws ensures their morality.

ü  We could, equally, have eight principles of the ‘inner morality’ of the poisoner’s art.

ü  Consistency is insufficient to establish the moral nature of such practices.

JOHN FINNIS……Substantive NL

·         Unlike Fuller’s concept, John Finnis falls unequivocally into the category of naturalist theory.

·         Tried to resurrect the natural law tradition

·         Tried to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. The existence of God is only possible explanation for the comparative order of that he seeks to project on human values, not the necessary reason.

 

1.     Finnis’ Defence of Naturalism

He believes there are two cardinal misconceptions about the theory.

ü  Finnis denies that natural law derives from the objectively determinable patterns of behaviour, but instead asserts it is ascertainable from inward knowledge of innate motivations.

ü  Natural law does not entail the view that law is not law if it contradicts morality.

The truth about NL

·         NL principles are pre-moral

·         Not the product of logical deduction,

·         Nor are they merely passions verified with reference to something objectively regarded as good.

·         No inference from fact to value(ought to is)

Finnis views the law as involving:-

ü  Rules made by ‘a determinate and effective authority’ for a ‘complete community’, strengthened by appropriate sanctions, and directed at the reasonable resolution of the community’s problems of co-ordination.

ü  Law is a means to an end: its end is ‘the community’s good’

 The common good is defined by Finnis as ‘a set of conditions which enables members of a community to attain for themselves reasonable objectives.

2.     The Basic Goods of Human Nature

Finnis’ central thesis consists of two major propositions.

 First: there are certain ‘human goods’, that is, basic values of human existence, that are self-evident, and that can be secured only through the law.

Secondly: these goods may be achieved through ‘practical reasonableness’, and this, too, necessitates law.

·         The ‘Practical reasonableness’ involves a use of the word ‘practical’ in an Aristotelian sense, as meaning ‘with a view to decision and action’; it is an aspect of ‘human flourishing’.

Based on the consistent behavior of human kind he isolates what he calls seven "basic goods" in life,

·         Goods those are fundamental, underived from other goods and irreducible to other things that are the motivation and goal of action.

Finnis’ seven basic goods are generally the following:

·         Life,

·         Knowledge,

·         Play, in essence the capacity for recreational experience and enjoyment

·         Aesthetic experience…..capacity to experience and relate to some perception of beauty.

·         Sociability or friendship,

·         Practical reasonableness,

·         Religion, not limited to religion in the formal sense of faith…..to a sense of the responsibility of human beings to some greater order than that of their own individuality.

ü  Therefore the goods that Finnis speaks of are not moral goods; they are necessary objects of human striving.

ü  They are self-evident

ü  Theses goods are subjective so far as they require no justification from the outside world

ü  But are really objective since all human must assent to their value due to these are the result of innate (inborn) knowledge.

Although there may be innumerable forms of human goods, Finnis claims that those outside his list are merely ways, or combinations of ways, of attaining any of the seven enumerated.

Critics

Ø  The list of ‘human goods’ may be no more than a subjective addition to the long list of similar catalogues,

Ø  Some of the goods might be rejected as desirable ends by some sections of the community.

Ø  Some of Finnis’ categories are presented in wide and imprecise terms, making their significance difficult to grasp. ‘Knowledge’

Ø  The problem of the ‘self-evident nature’ of the ‘human goods’ is an obstacle for those jurists who search for a rationale behind the catalogue. For the individual’s duty to seek continuously for verification of theories.

Ø  Finnis’ view of the law in terms of what it achieves, rather than what it is, has been considered less than helpful. It suggests a mere instrumental view of law and fails to examine the question – vital for advocates of the natural law – of the fundamental significance of law in our society.

However, he has provide a shelter for NL from the wind of moral relativism – an accomplishment.

No comments:

Post a Comment