God, New Natural Law Theory, and Human Rights

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8, 231 - 246, 07.03.2022

Çevirmen: Yunus Emre Berber

Öz

Critics of the “New” Natural Law (NNL) theory have raised questions about the role of the divine in that theory. This paper considers that role in regard to its account of human rights: can the NNL account of human rights be sustained without a more or less explicit advertence to “the question of God’s existence or nature or will”? It might seem that Finnis’s “elaborate sketch” includes a full theory of human rights even prior to the introduction of his reflections on the divine in the concluding chapter of Natural Law and Natural Rights. But in this essay, I argue that an adequate account of human rights cannot, in fact, be sustained without some role for God’s creative activity in two dimensions, the ontological and the motivational. These dimensions must be distinguished from the epistemological dimension of human rights, that is, the question of whether epistemological access to truths about human rights is possible without reference to God’s existence, nature, or will. The NNL view is that such access is possible. However, I will argue, the epistemological cannot be entirely cabined off from the relevant ontological and motivational issues and the NNL framework can accommodate this fact without difficulty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New Natural Law Theory, Natural Law, Human Rights, God

Tanrı, Yeni Doğal Hukuk Kuramı ve İnsan Hakları

Öz

“Yeni” Doğal Hukuk (YDH) kuramının eleştirileri bu kuramdaki ilahi olanın rolü hakkındaki soruları gündeme getirmiştir. Bu çalışma ilahi olanın rolünü bu kuramın insan haklarını temellendirmesi üzerinden ele almaktadır: YDH’nin insan hakları temellendirmesi “Tanrı’nın varlığı, doğası ya da iradesi meselesi”ne az ya da çok açık bir gönderme yapmadan hayatiyetini sürdürebilir mi? Finnis’in “ayrıntılı taslağının” Doğal Hukuk ve Doğal Hakların sonuç bölümünde ilahi olana ilişkin düşüncelerini ortaya koymasından önce bile tam bir insan hakları kuramını içerdiği görülebilir. Fakat bu makalede, yeterince güçlü bir insan hakları temellendirmesinin Tanrı’nın ontolojik ve motivasyonel olan iki boyuttaki yaratıcı etkinliğine biraz olsun rol vermeden hayatiyetini sürdürmeyeceğini iddia etmekteyim. Bahsi geçen bu boyutlar Tanrı’ya, doğasına veya iradesine gönderme yapmadan insan haklarıyla ilgili hakikatlere epistemolojik açıdan ulaşmanın mümkün olup olmadığı meselesi olan insan haklarının epistemolojik boyutundan ayrılmalıdır. YDH yaklaşımı bahsi geçen göndermeleri yapmadan insan haklarına ilişkin hakikatlere epistemolojik açıdan ulaşmanın mümkün olduğu kabulünü içermektedir. Bununla birlikte, ben epistemolojik olanın bahsi geçen ontolojik ve motivasyonel meselelerden tam olarak soyutlanamayacağını ve YDH yaklaşımının da bu gerçekle zorlanmadan uyum sağlayabileceğini iddia etmekteyim.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Doğal Hukuk Kuramı, Doğal Hukuk, İnsan Hakları, Tanrı

Kaynakça

• Boyle, J. (2020a). Free Choice, Incomparably Valuable Options, and Incommensurable Categories of Good, J. Liptay, C. Tollefsen içinde, Natural Law Ethics in Theory and Practice: A Joseph Boyle Reader. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
• Boyle, J. (2020b). Reasons for Action: Evaluative Cognitions that Underlie Motivation, J. Liptay, C. Tollefsen içinde, Natural Law Ethics in Theory and Practice: A Joseph Boyle Reader. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
• Boyle, J., Grisez, G., Tollefsen, O. (1976). Free Choice: A Self-Referential Argument, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Commission on Unalienable Human Rights. (2020). Report of the Department of State’s Commission on Unalienable Human Rights. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.
• Coyne, J. (2012, 18 Mart 2012). You Don’t Have a Free Will. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/you-dont-have-free-will/?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in. Son Erişim Tarihi: 22 Temmuz 2021.
• Di Blasi, F. (2013). The Role of God in the New Natural Law Theory, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 13, 35-45.
• Feser, E., Bessette, J. (2017). By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, San Francisco: Ignatius.
• Finnis, J. (1998). On the Practical Meaning of Secularism, Notre Dame Law Review, 73, 491–516.
• Finnis, J. (2011a). Introduction, Human Rights and Common Good, Collected Essays (Cilt III). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Finnis, J. (2011b). Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Finnis, J. (2016). Absolute Rights: Some Problems Illustrated, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61, 195–215.
• Finnis, J., Boyle, J., Grisez, G. (1987a). Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Finnis, J., Grisez, G., Boyle, J. (1987b). Practical Principles, Moral Truth, and Ultimate Ends, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 32, 99–151.
• Furton, E. (2014). Tollefsen on the Phoenix Case, Ethics and Medics, 39, 3–4.
• George, R. P. (2017). Natural Law, Human Dignity, and God, G. Duke, R. P. George içinde, Natural Law Jurisprudence (s. 57–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• George, R. P., Tollefsen, C. (2008). Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, New York: Doubleday.
• Goyette, J. (2013). On the Transcendence of the Political Common Good: Aquinas vs. The New Natural Law Theory, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 13, 133–155.
• Griffin, J. (2008). On Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Grisez, G. (2014, 26–27 Eylül). Human Persons’ True Ultimate End: The Continuity between the Natural End and the Spiritual End. 37th Annual Conference of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
• Hohfeld, W. N. (2001). Fundamental Legal Conceptions, Abingdon: Ashgate.
• Jensen, S. (2014). Causal Constraints on Intention, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 14, 273–293.
• Lee, P. (2006). Interrogational Torture, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 51, 131–147.
• Lee, P., George, R. P. (2008). The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity, Ratio Juris, 21, 173–193.
• Long, S. (2013). Fundamental Errors of the New Natural Law Theory, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 13, 105–131.
• Pakaluk, M. (2020). On What a Theory of Natural Law is Supposed to Be, Persona y Derecho, 82, 167–200.
• Silver, L. (2006). Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life, New York: Harper Collins.
• Tollefsen, C. (2018). The Future of Roman Catholic Bioethics, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 43, 667–685.
• Tollefsen, C. (2020). The Good of Play in John Finnis’s Natural Law and Natural Rights, Revista Persona y Derecho, 83, 571–590.
• Tollefsen, C. (Yayına Hazırlanıyor). New Natural Law Foundations of Human Rights, T. Angier, I. Benson, M. Retter içinde, The Cambridge Handbook of Natural Law and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Veatch, H. (1990). Swimming against the Current in Contemporary Philosophy: Occasional Essays and Papers, Washington, DC: Catholic University of American Press.