Justice, Justice, Thou Shalt Pursue

Due to the fact that Friday is this blog's news (or, sometimes, lack-of-news) day, we didn't get around to responding to a good article in Friday's issue of the Wall Street Journal. That, and we've been a little behindhand in zipping off our jabs and jolts to the media. This article, however, was right down our alley, highlighting the virtual complete abandonment of the natural moral law in modern society, even at Harvard (!!), . . . even in a class allegedly on "justice," the premier natural or temporal virtue. With that as a hook, the following letter practically wrote itself. (And if you believe that, send us an e-mail about the bridge in Brooklyn we might be open to selling you.)

Dear Sir(s):

Congratulations on Charlotte Allen's piece on Harvard Professor Michael Sandel's course on justice ("Justice for All: A Class in Ethical Sudoku,"* The Wall Street Journal, 10/09/09, W13). The fact that approximately a thousand students sign up for Professor Sandel's class argues a great hunger for justice. The problem with the class as described by Ms. Allen, however, is that it doesn't seem to be about justice. "Justice," according to Aristotle and Aquinas, is the habit a person has of rendering to others what is due to them.

Instead, Professor Sandel's students get situations based in utilitarianism* that only by a long and extremely tortuous stretch of the imagination come under prudence, not justice. Acts of prudence, of course, assume a solid grounding in justice, the premier natural virtue, something the students don't appear to be getting from Professor Sandel. The largely contrived ethical dilemmas with which the students are confronted fail to take into account the fact that, as far as "value" is concerned, each innocent human life is, in justice, of equal value. Even a single innocent individual may not, in justice, be sacrificed for the good of the many.

Professor Sandel should consider reorienting his class to conform to the ideas in the "Great Books of the Western World" program pioneered by Dr. Mortimer Adler and Dr. Robert Hutchins. A good source for Professor Sandel, his students, and anyone else interested in the natural law basis of western civilization is the Center for the Study of the Great Ideas in Chicago, http://www.thegreatideas.org/*, co-founded by Dr. Adler and Max Weismann.

Just read your article on Justice,.. looks like you can add another betrayal to chapter one of your book.

It’s not about Justice or the natural moral Law for his kind (and students); it’s about “Progress Justice” his own words, which is code for relativism plain and simple.

Charlie Rose interview with Prof. Sandel

http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4203  -Progressive Justice-

Just one question for your readers at The Just Third Way; Is Professor Sandel the new Spok?

Logic Dictates That The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few sound bite  Wrath of Khan Fanclub sound bites

,
Guy C.

‘But there can be no success for such opposition until the false hope of surrender and abdication again faces the true hope grounded in the faithful commitment that defines our identity both as Americans and as human beings. It is not a willful commitment to maintain the hollow ascendancy of power, but rather a reverent determination to keep faith with the principles of liberty, and with the will of the Creator God whose justice makes us free.” – Alan Keyes *

What is the "Natural Law"? Part I

 “The Idea of Freedom”

What is the "Natural Law"? Part II

Yesterday we noted that Dr. Max Weismann had sent us two articles by Mortimer J. Adler on the natural law and justice. Dr. Adler, of course, was co-author with Louis O. Kelso of The Capitalist Manifesto (1958) and The New Capitalists (1961). With Father William J. Ferree, S.M., Ph.D. (Introduction to Social Justice) Dr. Adler might be considered one of the great philosophers of the Just Third Way. We failed to note, however, that Dr. Weismann had previously sent us a more extended treatment by Dr. Adler of the natural law, although we did mention that fact in a previous news item. If you want more resources than you could possibly imagine about the philosophy of common sense and the natural moral law, visit the "Resource Links" page of the Center for the Study of the Great Ideas.

One thing we've kept insisting on since the beginning of this blog — and quite some time before, as the "Keynote Address" at the centenary of the Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Union of America last year makes clear — is that the restructuring of the social (and economic) order must be in conformity with the natural moral law. Not unnaturally, this raises the question as to what, exactly, is the natural law.

As Dr. Adler explains, "Let us first be clear that by 'natural law' we mean principles of human conduct, not the laws of nature discovered by the physical sciences." That is, the natural law is the way human beings are supposed to act in accordance with their own human nature. It is not the set of mechanical rules that govern how the universe physically operates. "The idea of a natural right order to which all things, including human beings, should conform is one of the most ancient and universal notions." Dr. Adler completes this thought by observing;

In Western society, especially from the Roman jurists and the theologians of the Middle Age[s] on, we find the doctrine of the natural moral law for man. It is the source of moral standards, the basis of moral judgments, and the measure of justice in the man-made laws of the State. If the law of the State runs counter to the precepts of the natural law, it is held to be unjust.

Thus, "the first precept of natural law is to seek the good and avoid evil." As a basic principle, however, this is nice, but nebulous until and unless it can be applied in everyday life. "Such a general principle is useless for organized society unless we can use it to specify various types of rights and wrongs. That is precisely what man-made, or positive, law tries to do." Dr. Adler continues;

Thus, the natural law tells us only that stealing is wrong because it inflicts injury, but the positive law of larceny defines the various kinds and degrees of theft and prescribes the punishments therefor.

For regular readers of this blog, this is one of those "stop me if you've heard this" moments, or (as Yogi Berra would say) déjà vu all over again. Dr. Heinrich Rommen (of more anon) said virtually the same thing in his book on the natural law:

"Thou shalt not steal" presupposes the institution of private property as pertaining to the natural law; but not, for example, the feudal property arrangements of the Middle Ages or the modern capitalist system. Since the natural law lays down general norms only, it is the function of the positive law to undertake the concrete, detailed regulation of real and personal property and to prescribe the formalities for conveyance of ownership. (The Natural Law, 59)

Human positive law is not set in stone, for (as both Aristotle and Aquinas observe), "particular rules of laws should [not] be the same in different times, places, and conditions." The basic precepts of the natural law are discernible by the use of human reason — Dr. Adler doesn't cite Aquinas on this, but in the treatise on law in the Summa, "the Angelic Doctor" states quite clearly that law is found in reason alone. (Ia IIae q. 90 a. 1)

Reflecting on Dr. Adler's explanation, we might conclude that it is humanity's task as a "political animals" to tailor our institutions, among which are positive laws, as well as customs and traditions, to conform as closely as possible to the essential principle of the natural law: good is to be done, evil avoided. Of course, we have to take into consideration the constraints imposed by the existing culture and institutions, human wants and needs, the physical environment, and so on. This is how Father William Ferree defined the "common good," the network of institutions (social structures) within which human beings as political animals carry out their business of living, the chief business being to acquire and develop virtue, thereby becoming more fully human by conforming ourselves ever more closely to our own nature. [emphasis added]

Dr. Adler doesn't go this far, but Pope Pius XI developed the idea of an "act of social justice" that is directed specifically at the reform of the institutions of the common good. There's an explanation in Introduction to Social Justice why traditional philosophers like Dr. Adler do not — yet — accept the idea of "social justice" as a "particular virtue," but that doesn't concern us for the purposes of this discussion. The bottom line is that we are not helpless in the face of badly structured institutions or poorly organized societies. It is within our power, as members of organized groups, to effect beneficial social change directly on our institutional environment. [as in Personhood imperative, or Just Economy]

If your eyes glazed over reading the preceding two paragraphs, don't worry. They are not essential to this discussion, although they are critical to the implementation and maintenance of the Just Third Way. Just go on to the next paragraph.

As we might expect, not everyone agrees with this view of the natural law. For thousands of years there has been a school of thought that holds that human positive law is purely a matter of agreement among people joined together in society, a convention not rooted in our very identity as human beings. That being the case, you can pretty much do anything you like as long as you can get enough people to go along with it. Countering this belief, which Dr. Adler refers to as "conventionalism" and "positivism," will be the subject of our next posting in this series.

Posted by Michael D. Greaney

"Good is to be Done"

Mortimer Adler
9/7/1958

Mortimer Adler, president of the Institute for Philosophical Research, former professor of the philosophy of law at the University of Chicago, and author of The Idea of Freedom, talks to Wallace about conceptions of freedom, capitalism, socialism, and the American worker.

Watch Video


Transcript

What is the "Natural Law"? Part III

As we saw in our last exciting episode in this series, not everyone agrees that human positive law is or even needs to be a reflection of an eternally valid natural law. For thousands of years some people have held that positive law is purely a matter of convention, of agreement among peoples. If you can get enough people to agree with you on what the law — and thus morality — is, then you can do it.

Mortimer J. Adler called this belief "conventionalism" and "positivism." Heinrich Rommen called it simply "positivism," while Pope Pius XI employed the somewhat confusing "theological" term, "modernism." (What the Catholic Church calls "modernism" really doesn't have anything to do with being modern, but is a weird grab-bag of philosophies and theological thought discredited centuries, sometimes millennia ago, and periodically resurrected and given an attractive new name until people catch on. Similarly, "liberalism" in "Catholic language" doesn't mean political or social liberalism, but a specific religious belief that all religions are really the same. "Liberalism" is the theory that a Satanist, a Hindu, and a Southern Baptist all have the same religious beliefs, and any differences are merely semantic.)

To get back to our story, Dr. Adler explains that, while Christians are the largest group of thinkers who base the natural law on what reason discerns and discovers of human nature, this particular orientation is not confined to Christians. We find it (as we might expect) in Aristotle, Cicero, even modern secularists such as Kant and Hegel, as well as in Jews who follow the philosophy of Moses Maimonides and Muslims who follow that of Ibn Khaldûn. The essential point of agreement is that there is somewhere a source of absolute truth. People can disagree, sometimes violently, on what to call this source — most people call it "God" or some variation thereon — but all agree that there is definitely something there, that this source is "good," and that such things as theft, murder, adultery, lying, and so on, are contrary to nature.

Unfortunately, what happens is that some people (especially devout religious believers and, paradoxically, militant secularists and atheists) have the tendency to claim that the natural moral law is not truly an aspect of human nature, but of divine command. The natural law is not discovered by observing what the human race has in all times and places decided is "good," but is, instead, contained in some revelation by some deity.

In the Middle Ages, this resulted in an intellectual "war" between the philosophers who believed that "law is found in reason alone" (Summa, Ia IIae q. 90 a. 1), and those who believed that the law is revealed directly to man by God. That is, there was a conflict between the philosophers who held that the natural law can be figured out by anybody with a brain through the process of reason, and those who believed that the natural law was found in whatever a believer believed to be an expression of the will of a deity, e.g., the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'uran, and so on — that is, in the positive expression of God's Will found in a document believed to be of divine origin.

Obviously, there are some problems inherent in the two approaches, one of which bases things on reason and the other on faith — or there wouldn't be a conflict. What some of these problems are will be covered in the next posting in this series.

by Michael D. Greaney

What is the "Natural Law"? Part IV

    

Jeremiah 2:5

Thus says the LORD, "What injustice did your fathers find in Me, that they went far from Me And walked after emptiness and became empty?

*   *   *   *

Michael Greaney, left me a little empty by not providing the source for the title of this post. ‘Justice, Justice,..’ here is the full quote. I would ask any and all others to provide for me there favorite use of the word, in the context of this source and link. Justice…← link this.

 *   *   *   *

Deuteronomy 16:20

"Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=verse_search&start=20&srchstr=Justice&range=old&trans=NASB

*   *   *   *

and for my catholic friends;

What is the "Natural Law"? Part V

Monday, October, 26, 2009 

In our penultimate posting in this series, we discovered that materialists who reject faith, and believers who reject reason, are in reality making the same mistake, only from different directions. Both tend to view the world in terms of faith or reason (or, more accurately, demonizes something the other side calls "science" or "religion"), not faith and reason.

Thus, if you believe that the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'uran, or the writings of the gods of secular academia contain specific instructions for the conduct of human life, instead of expressing general principles of truth that apply within a particular sphere, you tend to reject the underlying principle(s) in favor of specific applications that may or may not apply in a particular case. The problem becomes discerning the real basis for the natural law, and going from there, rather than taking your own opinion as to the meaning of some revelation, whether religious or scientific, and trying to force it on everyone else.

This is the whole point of the analysis in Dr. Heinrich Rommen's book, The Natural Law (Amazon, Barnes & Noble) written in the wake of the Nazi tyranny as an effort to explain the origins of totalitarianism. Dr. Rommen, a student of Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J., the great solidarist philosopher, was a member of the Königswinterkreis study group that included, among other notables, Father Oswald von Nel Bruening, S.J., who drafted Quadragesimo Anno ("On the Restructuring of the Social Order"), 1931, under the direction of Pope Pius XI. One of Germany's leading jurists, Dr. Rommen was forced to flee Germany in the 1930s, ending up teaching at Georgetown University, although (oddly) not at the law school. As Rommen explains the position of those who rely on faith rather than reason in matters of science (and, yes, theology and philosophy are sciences),

For Duns Scotus morality depends on the will of God. A thing is good not because it corresponds to the nature of God or, analogically, to the nature of man, but because God so wills. Hence the lex naturalis could be other than it is even materially or as to content, because it has no intrinsic connection with God's essence, which is self-conscious in His intellect. For Scotus, therefore, the laws of the second table of the Decalogue were no longer unalterable. . . . Now . . . an evolution set in which, in the doctrine of William of Occam (d. cir. 1349) on the natural moral law, would lead to pure moral positivism, indeed to nihilism. (Heinrich Rommen, The Natural Law, 51-52)

 as from time to time, a few comments and feed back;

And then today there is this: