پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,099,034 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,206,627 |
مطالعۀ انتقادی نظریههای غربی قانون طبیعی در آخرین مرحلۀ احیای آن در دورۀ پساتجدد | ||
| فلسفه | ||
| دوره 20، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 39، بهمن 1401، صفحه 173-191 اصل مقاله (884.33 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی -پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jop.2022.335998.1006679 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| محمد حسین طالبی* | ||
| دانشیار فلسفه حقوق، گروه حقوق و فقه اجتماعی، پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه، قم، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| سومین و آخرین مرحلۀ احیای اندیشه غربی قانون طبیعی در دورۀ پساتجدد از سومین دهه پایانی قرن بیستم با توجه فیلسوفان و حقوقدانان به مسئله حقوق بشر شروع شد. در این مقاله آخرین نظریههای غربی قانون طبیعی درخلال دو گفتار تبیین و ارزیابی شدهاند. گفتار نخست اندیشه غیرنوتومیستی قانون طبیعی را در آن دوره بررسی کرده است. در این راستا، فولر نظریه اخلاقی بودن درونی قانون را مطرح کرد. یکی از اشکالات نظریه او آن است که اخلاقی بودن درونی قانون چیزی بیش از ابداع لفظ نیست. دورکین که طرفدار نظریههای تفسیری قانون بود، همواره نظریههای معنایی (سمانتیک) را نقد میکرد. افزون بر آنکه لازمه سخن او تن دادن به نسبیت گرایی در جهان حقوق و اخلاق است، نظریه او در مورد آن دسته از کارهای بشر که دربارۀ آنها قانون موضوعه وجود ندارد، ناصحیح است. گفتار دوم نظریه فینیس را به عنوان جدیدترین خوانش نوتومیستی قانون طبیعی ارزیابی کرده است. او پنج ویژگی خیرهای اصیل را بداهت، ذاتی بودن، عدم ارتباط آنها با یکدیگر، تساوی آنها در اهمیت و بیارتباط بودن آنها با هستها میداند. نظریه فینیس کاستیهای گوناگون دارد، از جمله اینکه هیچ‌یک از این اوصاف خصوصیتهای خیرهای اصیل نیستند. روش تحقیق دراین مقاله روشی ترکیبی(نقلی-عقلی-انتقادی) است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| قانون طبیعی؛ آخرین مرحلۀ احیای قانون طبیعی؛ مطالعه انتقادی؛ فولر؛ دورکین؛ فینیس | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Critical Study of Western Natural Law Theories in the Last Stage of Its Revival in Postmodern Period | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Hossein Talebi | ||
| Associate Professor of Philosophy of Law, Department of Law and Social Jurisprudence, Research Institute of Hawzah and University, Qom, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The third and the last stage of the revival of western natural law thinking in postmodern period started from the last third decade of the 20th century by philosophers' and lawyers' attention to human rights. The last western natural law theories have been explained and assessed during two chapters in this article. The first chapter has analyzed non-Thomist thought of natural law in that period. In this direction, Fuller offered the theory of "internal morality of law". There are at least three deficiencies of his theory. The first is that his definition of natural law is eighter a circular one, or couses positive law to be the criterion of identifying natural law, whereas natural lawyers put natural law as the criterion of positive one. The second deficiency is that the theory is just an innovation of words. The third and the last deficiency of Fuler's natural law theory is that the theory does not insist on positive rules to be moral. Dworkin called his theory of law "Constructive Interpretation". According to the theory, law is the best interpretation, which can be understood from interrelated legal data, like the acts of legislator, court jugments, legal basic texts and… . "Integrity" is an important keyword in his theory. He emphasized that legal claimes are interpretational jugments. They interpret a present legal act as a plain political affair. That is why Dworkin believed that history has an important role in his theory, unlike positive approaches to law. Infact, he was a proponent of interpretive theories of law and he always criticized semantic theories. In addition to the implication of his speech, which is the acceptance of relativism in the world of law and ethics, since Dworkin identified (moral) positive law as a perfect criterion of integral actions, his theory about those human affairs, which have no enacted law, was wrong. The second chapter has assessed Finnis's theory as the newest neo-Thomist conception of natural law. Natural law in his view, is the intellectual judgment to do good actions. According to Finnis, a wise decision is one that is accomplished for the sake of a basic good. In his final view, basic goods are seven: bodily life, knowledge, skilful performance in work and play, friendship, marriage, practical reasonableness and harmony with the widest reaches and ultimate source of reality including meaning and value. He attributed to basic goods five characteristics as follows: self-evidence, being intrinsic, having no relation with each other, being equal with each other and having no inference from the fact. Finnis's theory has variant deficiencies, including that none of these features is an attribute of basic goods. Research method in this article is a synthetic one, which is traditional – intellectual – critical. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Natural law, Last stage of natural law revival, Critical study, Fuller, Dworkin, Finnis | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
مصباح یزدی، محمد تقی(1367)، آموزش فلسفه، ج 1، چ 3، تهران، سازمان تبلیغات اسلامی.
Bix, B. (2002), “Natural Law: The Modern Tradition”, in Coleman J. and Shapiro S. eds., The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford, Oxford University, 61-103. Campbell, T. (2006), Rights, A Critical Introduction, London and New York, Routledge. Covell, C. (1992), The Defense of Natural Law, London, Macmillan. Dworkin, R. (1986), Law’s Empire, London, Fontana. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1983), “A Reply by Ronald Dworkin” in Cohen M. ed., Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld. Finnis, J. (1980), Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1981), “Natural Law and the ‘Is’-‘Ought’ Question: An Invitation to Professor Veatch”, in Catholic Lawyer, 26, 266-277. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1983), Fundamentals of Ethics, Washington, DC, Georgetown University. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1995), “A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia”, in Keown J. ed., Euthanasia Examined, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 23-35. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1996), “Is Natural Law Theory Compatible with Limited Government?”, in George R. P. ed., Natural Law, Liberalism and Morality, Oxford, Oxford University, 1-26. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1997a), “Commensuration and Public Reason”, in Chang R. ed., Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, 215-233. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1997b), “The Good of Marriage and The Morality of Sexual Relations: Some Philosophical and Historical Observations”, in American Journal of Jurisprudence, 42, 97-134. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1998), Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal Theory, New York, Oxford University. Finnis, J, J. Boyle, and G. Grisez (1987a), Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism, Oxford, Clarendon. ــــــــــــــــــــ (1987b), “Practical Principles, Moral Truth, and Ultimate Ends”, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 32, 99-151 Fuller, L. (1964), The Morality of Law, New Haven, Yale University. Grisez, G. (1970), “The first principle of Practical Reason”, in Kenny A. ed., Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays, London, Macmillan, 340-382. Griffin, J. (2008), On Human Rights, Oxford, Oxford University. Hume, D. (1967), A Treatise of Human Nature [1740], in Selby-bigge L.A. ed., Oxford, Clarendon. Jones, P. (1994), Rights, Houndmills and New York, Palgrave. Kramer, M. (1999), In Defense of Legal Positivism: Law without Trimmings, Oxford, Oxford University. Misbah Yazdi, M. T. (1989), Philosophical Instructions, vol. 1, 3rd p., Tehran: Islamic Propagations Org. (In Persian) Viola, F. (2016), "Natural Law Theories in the 20th Century", in Pattaro E. ed., A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Vol. 12, Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World, Tom 2:Main Orientations and Topics, Netherland, Springer. Vlastos, G. (1970), “Justice and Equality”, in A. L. Melden ed., Human Rights, Belmont, Wadsworth, 76-95. Wasserstrom, R. (1970), “Rights, Human Rights and Racial Discrimination”, in A. L.Melden ed., Human Rights, Belmont, Wadsworth, 96-110. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 588 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 259 |
||