El florecimiento humano integral. Reflexiones acerca del estatuto, función e introducción del primer principio de la moral en «Natural Law and Natural Rights»
Moral philosophy plays a fundamental role, together with political philosophy and Jurisprudence, in Finnis’ argument present in his two editions of Natural Law and Natural Rights, to answer the question of how natural rights are based on natural law. Finnis’ explanation of natural law and its functi...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Navarra |
| Repositorio: | Dadun. Depósito Académico Digital de la Universidad de Navarra |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dadun.unav.edu:10171/61654 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10171/61654 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | perfectio ley natural beatitudo imperfecta Finnis Aquinas moralidad |
| Sumario: | Moral philosophy plays a fundamental role, together with political philosophy and Jurisprudence, in Finnis’ argument present in his two editions of Natural Law and Natural Rights, to answer the question of how natural rights are based on natural law. Finnis’ explanation of natural law and its functioning is inspired in some relevant texts of Aquinas; however, the roots and reasonings of both authors are diverse here. The first edition presents a moral philosophy proposing the interaction between two types of principles: basic human goods and the requirements of one of them (practical reasonableness). The second edition introduces a new moral principle, called «integral human fulfillment», to moderate the interplay of the said principles. This work explains why the moral assumptions under the first edition were restrictive and shown the insufficiency for human goods to fill the teleological perspective of morality. Likewise, I explain the doctrinal evolution of the concept of integral human fulfilment in the author’s work as well as the difficulties deriving of the introduction of the new moral «guide» (formally recognized from 1987 on), within an existing theory. I have focused on the following possibly problematic aspects of the new principle: the use of denominations with different meanings as synonyms (flourishing, fulfillment, realization.../ end, objective, goal, good, not good, key premise, master principle of morality, ideal, precept...), its not precise comparison with the thomistic <em>beatitudo imperfecta</em>, its problematic assembling with the «evident» practical principles as explained in the first edition, the circularity of the system, and the possible doubts about the preceptive role of the ideal of the integral human flourishing, by assuming that it does not involve, necessariliy, the idea of an end. |
|---|