Peter Koritansky

Inspired by Patrick Lee’s “A Christian Philosopher’s View of Recent Directions in the Abortion Debate,” this essay raises the question of how effective philosophical arguments can be in determining the moral status of legalized abortion. On one hand, Christian philosophers have been successful in explaining both the humanity and the personhood of the unborn child, as well as exposing the incoherence of those who would deny the unborn child’s humanity or personhood. Nevertheless, in order to confront the pro-abortion position in its most radical form, a much more complex philosophical argument must be given. Following thinkers such as Alasdaire MacIntyre, Christian philosophers must articulate and promote a philosophical position according to which morality is conceived in richer terms than the mere respecting of individual rights. The social dimension of human nature must be rediscovered in order that the happiness and welfare of others becomes a desirable goal in and of itself. According to a morality where individual rights is the bottom line (for example, that of Judith Jarvis Thompson), women very well may have the right to “extricate” themselves from their pregnancy even when doing so will result in the death of their child. What must be explained, therefore, is the more profound insight that social morality is equally concerned with obligations to others, including those who are most helpless and unable to speak for themselves.

In this short monograph, Riccardo Saccenti surveys the various and competing interpretations of natural law and natural right from the late Middle Ages through the modern period. As “a survey,” the intention of this book is not so much to advance and defend a central thesis about natural law, but rather to paint a picture of how the various interpreters of natural law have responded to the most important primary texts and to one another. One of the issues with which Saccenti is most concerned is the transition from the medieval understanding of natural law inspired by an Aristotelian concept of nature to a modern theory of natural individual rights. Where exactly does this transition begin and where is it more or less consummated? A reader of this book will be impressed by the complexity of this debate and the nuances of difference between its participants. Saccenti’s account of it succeeds in exposing the folly of overly simplistic readings of intellectual history that are ideologically motivated, and reminds us what a careful reading of primary and secondary sources can achieve.

This paper examines Thomas Aquinas’s condemnation of usury. In the first section, the details of Thomas’s teaching are examined with special attention to the so-called “extrinsic titles” discussed in the Middle Ages as qualifications of the moral and legal strictures concerning moneylending. The reminder of the paper examines the particular extrinsic title of Lucrum Cessans (compensation for lost profit), which Thomas rejects, and attempts to square that rejection with other texts implying that compensation for lost profit is a requirement of justice when taken outside the context of moneylending. The paper concludes with some possible modern applications of Thomas’s position.

In his 1940 publication, Scholasticism and Politics, Jacques Maritain asserts that "the modern world has sought good things in bad ways; it has thus compromised the search for authentic human values, which men must save now by an intellectual grasp of a profounder truth, by a substantial recasting of humanism." In the essays that follow, Maritain explores the cultural and philosophical dimensions of this claim and sketches an outline for addressing what he famously calls the "crisis of modern times." The answer is a new humanism that appropriates the important insights of modern thought, but which is also grounded in the classical tradition that reaches its full philosophical development in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. It is a humanism that acknowledges the dignity of both man’s body and his soul, and which does not close his soul off to the transcendent. The authors of Human Nature, Contemplation, and the Political Order: Essays Inspired by Jacques Maritain’s Scholasticism and Politics carry Maritain’s philosophical and cultural insights into the twenty-first century. They do so by exploring Maritain’s understanding of the human soul with particular emphasis upon Maritain’s extremely thoughtful critique of Freud. Others investigate the moral and political dimension of Maritain’s thought by bringing him into dialogue with modern figures as diverse as Niccolò Machiavelli, Elizabeth Anscombe, and Pope Benedict XVI. Still others develop the modern significance of and connection between Maritain’s humanism and the Thomistic identification of human happiness with contemplation.

In 1958, the Harvard Law Review published a now-famous debate between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller regarding the proposed connection between law and morality. Whereas Hart defended a broadly positivist conception of law, Fuller advanced a kind of natural law theory that has greatly influenced judicial interpretation in the United States. This paper examines the debate and provides a commentary in light of the natural law theory of Thomas Aquinas. Whereas it is not surprising that Aquinas would reject the central tenets of Hart’s positivism, it also appears he would have deep misgivings about the position defended by Professor Fuller, and particularly Fuller’s understanding of how laws should be interpreted in light of morality.

Justifying the human institution of punishment has been a central theme in the history of moral and political philosophy. At no time has this been more apparent than at the present, where this question has evoked a great debate between two schools of thought, namely, utilitarianism and retributivism. This thesis firstly attempts to articulate the central questions underlying this debate and to articulate the powerful criticisms each side renders against one another. It is our thesis that, whereas each side seems to be successful in pointing out the defects of their opponent, neither has been able to answer the most powerful criticisms rendered against them. The result of this, we argue, is that one must look beyond the contemporary debate to see the true meaning and justification of punishment within political life. This is possible either by construing a theory of punishment not yet considered by the tradition of political philosophy, or by rediscovering a theory of punishment articulated by one of that tradition's non-contemporary members. This thesis opts for the latter, and considers the contribution Thomas Aquinas can make to this great question. ;The thesis contains six chapters. The first chapter considers the roots of utilitarianism and retributivism by looking to the thought of Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Each thinker is introduced by a brief discussion of his moral and political thought as a whole followed by a treatment of his understanding of punishment. The second chapter is concerned more with the contemporary literature, and with the specific arguments of utilitarians and retributivists against one another. Chapter Three introduces the thought of Thomas Aquinas and is chiefly concerned with establishing the meaning of punishment in its widest moral, political, and theological significance. Chapter Four continues this discussion by considering divine punishment, a question not central to the contemporary debate but essential for understanding Thomas' contribution. Chapter Five considers Thomas' discussion of human punishment, or his understanding of punishment's role and justification within the human political order. Chapter Six concludes by discussing Thomas' teaching in light of the contemporary debate between utilitarians and retributivists, and by explaining his contribution to that debate

What does the institution of punishment look like in an ideal political system? Is punishment merely an exercise of violence of the strong against the weak? And what does the phenomenon of revealed religion add to the understanding of punishment? These are some of the many questions contemplated in _The Philosophy of Punishment and the History of Political Thought_, which provides a provocative exploration of the contributions of nine major thinkers and traditions regarding the question of punitive justice. For the last half century, the philosophical debates over punishment have been deadlocked at two schools of thought: Utilitarianism and Retributivism. In his introduction, Koritansky provides an overview of the stymied debate by analyzing H. L. A. Hart’s argument for a philosophy unifying the theories of Utilitarianism and Retributivism. While Koritansky allows that both theories have contributed substantially to the contemporary understanding of punishment, he points out that Hart’s lack of success in combining these theories proves that both are less than ideal. From this starting point, Koritansky urges transcendence from these two theories in order to respond to new developments and circumstances surrounding the enactment of punishment today. Conveniently divided into three sections, the book explores pagan and Christian premodern thought; early modern thought, culminating in chapters on Kant and classic Utilitarianism; and postmodern thought as exemplified in the theories of Nietzsche and Foucault. In all, the essays probe the work of Plato, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Cesere Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Michel Foucault. These essays devoted to the philosophy of punishment from the perspective of political thought delve deep into key contributions from thinkers of all eras to help further debates on punishment, provide the history of political thought in order to trace changes and effects on future theories, as well as expose the roots of the two prevailing schools of thought. This collection will engage all social scientists interested in the issue of punishment and energize the ongoing debate surrounding this complex issue.