Відео

Well, that is the problem with antithetical thinking. Going back to the roots of natural law inevitavly has to upset those who believe that we have overcome the tradition (that is also present in the catholic social teachings) via the liberalism (classical) socialism dichotomy. In my view though, such a 'small government' libertarianism is not sufficient for a holistic conservative judicial philosophy. And textualism and originalism are well intentioned but fail whenever one has to infer moral judgment which in some cases is necessary. And Textualists forget that the context that according to Scalia is important in reading a statute is also something that has to be evaluated based on value judgments. In conclusion I do not think that the natural law tradition is akin to socialism. In contrast I believe that the mainstream conservativism in the US has a very individualistic bent which is not necessarily good for the wider public for which the law (also) exists, not just for the individuals but for the community. I do believe that the natural law tradition is well-suited to find the right balance between individualism and the community. The common good certainly can also be fulfilled in individuals but not exclusively

That's the liberal tradition, a very problematic tradition (have a look at Edward Feser's "Locke" if you want a primer), but individualism (emphasis on the -ism) is at odds with the natural law, that is, human nature and the human good. We are social animals, not atoms. Our good depends essentially on a common good. Some like to blame the chaos and overall malaise of our times on bad actors---and to be sure, there are bad actors---but the eldritch currents of history have much more to do with bad ideas than bad actors who tend to be opportunists that pale in comparison with the power of bad beliefs. Individualism, like collectivism, is an extremist position that neglects what is true of human beings and what they need to flourish. The liberal notion of freedom understood as the ability to do what one wants is disastrous to both individual and society. As Augustine wrote, this is a recipe for slavery of the most veritable kind. True freedom is to be found in the classical understanding of freedom as the ability to do what one ought.

@@oktavianzamoyski9809 The problem is "who gets to decide what one ought to do"? Are you saying that the state gets to tell us how to live, and to choose for us what will make us happy? I think that I know myself better than the state. And what I choose (as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's freedom) should be left up to me.

@@oktavianzamoyski9809and who decides what is the common good? 🤡🤡 what is the “common good”. So incredibly subjective. You wouldn’t like it if liberals decided for you what was in the publics best interest huh? So, don’t be a hypocrite and call for the same thing just because it’s YOUR agenda. The second amendment exists to fight all kinds of tyranny. Including Christian tyranny. Don’t forget that!

@@abidd then you are by definition a liberal. What you said can only be described as individualism in its pure form. 😀 I see that as problematic.

​@@davidr2299The people

Thank you so much for this guide! Helps a lot to keep track of Prof. Vermeule's lecture.