نقد قانونگذاری در حوزه اخلاق از منظر حقوق طبیعی مدرن

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

10.22099/jls.2023.40905.4422

چکیده

پرسش از چیستی قانون، مبانی و عرصه اعمال آن همواره یکی از مهم­ترین محورهای اندیشه­ورزی بشر بوده است. با ظهور مسیحیت برای نخستین بار شرایط ایفای نقش الهیات و اخلاق دینی در عرصه قانون فراهم شد. حامیان حقوق طبیعی (کلاسیک) منکر اعتبار قانون وضع‌شده توسط بشر و قائل وجود مجموعه­ای از محدودیت­های عینی عقلانی بر صلاحیت قانون‌گذار بودند. بعدها به موازات نیاز به وضع قوانین بشری، نخست برخی اصلاحات در حقوق طبیعی کلاسیک انجام اما بعدها نظریات جدیدی در قالب فلسفه حقوق تحلیلی پدید آمد که تقابل عقل و اخلاق را در محور مباحث مربوط به قانون و قانون‌گذاری قرار داده و تلاش کردند تا خوانشی عقل­محور از اخلاق ارائه کنند. لذا در راستای پرسش اصلی این مقاله مبنی بر امکان‌سنجی ارائه خوانشی از عقل که قابلیت سازگاری با آموزه­های اخلاقی را داشته باشد، ضمن ادعای نابسندگی خوانش حقوق طبیعی کلاسیک و امکان ارائه خوانشی عقلانی از اخلاق قانونی که تاب تحمل در برابر انتقادهای پوزیتویستی را داشته باشد، به این نتیجه خواهیم رسید که حقوق طبیعی مدرن برخلاف الگوی کلاسیک آن، در چارچوب نظری تا حد زیادی به این هدف نائل شده اما در عرصه عملی به عنوان مهم­ترین بُعد موضوع، با موفقیت چندانی همراه نبود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Revisiting the Relationship between Law and Morality through the Lens of Natural Law Jurisprudence

نویسنده [English]

  • mohamad moghtader 2
2 Ph.D. Student in Public Law , Department of Public Law, Allame Tabatabaie University, Tehran, IRAN
چکیده [English]

 The evolution of natural law within jurisprudence has profoundly shaped legal philosophies throughout history. Its foundations intertwine theology, religious ethics, and the belief in fixed, eternal laws governing the world's nature, rooted in divine order. The origins of natural rights can be traced back to the Stoics, whose philosophy emphasized the intrinsic relationship between nature, reason, and law.
Early proponents of natural law, influential until the 18th century, contested the credibility of man-made laws, advocating for objective limitations on sovereign lawmaking. They asserted that man-made laws ought to align with natural law, grounded in reason. However, societal progression prompted a shift, acknowledging the necessity of man-made laws.
In the modern era, the rise of positivism and the belief in the separation of law and ethics posed challenges to traditional natural law theory. Some thinkers contended that despite these changes, natural law could still address modern ethical needs by modifying classical perspectives.
John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" in 1859 introduced the Harm principle, challenging the government's role in morality enforcement. Subsequently, James Fitzjames Stephen opposed this notion in "Liberty, Equality and 
Fraternity" in 1873. The 20th-centur y "Wolfenden Committee" report to the British House of Representatives triggered debates such as the "Hart and Devlin" debate, centering on the principle of harm, becoming pivotal in Anglo-American legal philosophy and across legal systems globally.
This article aims to assess the relationship between law and morality within the context of natural law jurisprudence. It contends that while classical natural law comprehension may be inadequate, a rational understanding of legal ethics can withstand positivist criticisms. Moreover, it argues that modern natural law, despite its theoretical advancements, faces practical challenges. Notably, references will be drawn from prominent natural law thinkers such as LON Fuller, Mark Murphy, John Finnis, and Robert George.
An essential conclusion drawn from these evaluations is the centrality of reason in moral legislation. While classical natural law emphasized the superiority of morality over law, modern natural law theories focus on the formal conditions of legal morality, relying on formal, rational, and verifiable criteria.
The transformation also extends to the approach toward law and ethics, altering the concept of duty towards unjust norms and leading to changing standards of legal morality. Furthermore, the origins of legal validity have shifted from moral principles rooted in broader maxims to the predominance of reason and rationality in legitimizing political and legal orders.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Natural Law Jurisprudence
  • Relationship between Law and Morality
  • Legal Ethics
  • Jurisprudential Evolution
  • Legal Validity

مراجع

Aquinas, T. (2010). On Law, Morality, and Politics, UK, Hackett Publishing.
Bradley, G. V. (2014). Pluralistic Perfectionism: A Review Essay of Making Men Moral, Notre Dome Law Review, 71(4), 574-599.
Covell, C. (1992). The Defence of Natural Law: A Study of Ideas of Law and Justice in the Writings of Fuller, Oakeshott, Hayek, Dworkin, and Finnis, USA, The Macmillan Press.
Crowe, J. (2012). Clarifying the Natural Law Thesis, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 37(13-02), 159-181.
Devlin, P. (1965). The Enforcement of Morals, UK, Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1966). Lord Devlin and the Enforcement of Morals, Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 75(11), 986-1005.
Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights, New York, Second Edition, Oxford University Press.
Finnis, J. (1987). Legal Enforcement of Duties to Oneself, Notre Dome Law School, 87, 433-456
Fuller, L. (1958). Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart, Harvard Law Review, 71(4), 630-672.
Fuller, L. (1969). The Morality of Law, UK, Second Edition, Yale University Press.
Fuller, L. (1966). The Law in Quest of Itself, USA, Julius Rosenthal Foundation for General Law, Beacon Press.
George, R. P. (1993). Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality, USA, Oxford University Press.
George, R. P. (2000). The Concept of Public Morality, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 45(1), 17-31.
Green, L. (2012). The Nature of Limited Government, Oxford Legal Studies Research, 1-33.
Katouzian, N. (1377). Philosophy of Law, Tehran: Publishing Company [in Persian]
Keown. J., & George. R. P. (2013). Reason, Morality, and Law (The Philosophy of John Finnis), USA, Oxford University Press
Lewis, O. C. (1965). Fuller, The Morality of Law, Case Western Law Review, 17(1), 351-379
Malmiri Markaz, A. (2014). Rule of Law: Concepts, Basics and Concepts, Tehran: Research Center of Islamic Congress [in Persian]
Murphy, M. C. (2006). Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, M. C. (2007). Philosophy of Law, USA, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Rasekh, M. (2002). Right and Expediency, Tehran: New Design Publications [in Persian].
 Rasekh, M. (2005). The theoretical foundation for reforming the legislative system, Tehran: Islamic Congress Research Center [in Persian].
Regan, R. (2010). On Law, Morality, and Politics, UK, Hackett Classics.
Stephen, J. F. (1992). Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: And Three Brief Essays, USA, University of Chicago Press.
 Stuart Mill, J. (2003). On Liberty, UK, Yale University Press.
Vander Burge,V & Brom. F. W. A. (1998). Legislation on Ethical Issues: Towards an Interactive Paradigm, Oxford Legal Studies Research, 32- 57.
Vox, R. (2021). Brief and useful philosophy of law, Bagher Ansari, Tehran: Jungle Publishing [in Persian].
Wallin, A. E. (2012). John Finnis’s Natural Theory and a Critique of the Incommensurable Nature of Basic Goods, Campbell Law Review, 33(1), 59-81.
White, B. (1996). Is There A Place For Morality in Law, Queensland University of Technology Law Journal, 12(12), 229-241.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار