La teoría de la ley natural de Francisco Suárez ha sido objeto de interpretaciones radicalmente divergentes. Como norma general, los comentaristas que acusan o alaban a Suárez por apartarse de Tomás de Aquino y por adoptar principios filosóficos nominalistas, generalmente lo consideran un voluntarista, mientras que los estudiosos que ven en él un innovador creativo dentro del ala tomista, se inclinan por considerarlo como una especie de racionalista que rechaza claramente el voluntarismo de Ockham y Escoto. Un tercer tipo de (...) interpretación sugiere que Suárez se apartó de la tradición tomista de la ley natural en una dirección opuesta, de modo tal que preparó el camino para el racionalismo moderno y la teoría secularizada de la ley natural. El punto de partida de esta última lectura reside en que él "concede lo esencial", o “está cerca de conceder la substancia” de la posición intelectualista de Gabriel Vázquez, o "es llevado al umbral de” su aceptación. Por tanto, “fundamentalmente, las voluntad divina sigue estando también en Suárez ligada a la naturaleza racional de las cosas. […] Al bien o mal existente en sí mismo, la voluntad de Dios solo añade la obligación especial de la ley divina”, visión que está a solo un paso de la famosa hipótesis del “etiamsi daremus” de Grocio. Este artículo intenta principalmente refutar esta línea de argumentación. Defenderé que los elementos voluntaristas de la síntesis de Suárez excluyen absolutamente tal interpretación, no solo su bien conocido concepto general de ley, sino también su habitualmente descuidada noción de 'ley eterna', a la que atribuyo un papel clave a este respecto. (shrink)

The focus of my dissertation is a general and comprehensive examination of Locke’s view of divine power. My basic argument is that John Locke is a theological voluntarist in his understanding of God’s creative and providential relationship with the world, including both the natural and moral order. As a voluntarist, Locke holds that God freely imposes both the physical and moral laws of nature onto creation by means of his will: this contrasts with the intellectualist perspective in which the laws (...) of nature emerge from the essences of things. For Locke, there are no intrinsically necessary laws in the created order: both physical and moral laws are arbitrary determinations of the divine will. While these laws are not intrinsically necessary, they are hypothetically necessary. Hypothetical necessity involves things that could have been otherwise, but which are necessary based on the supposition of a free action and other relevant conditions pertaining to the actor. Concerning God, we can understand hypothetical necessity in the following way: □ [ → Y]. X is a variable that ranges over a subset of contingent propositions about actions. ‘P’ is the proposition ‘God is perfect’. And Y is any proposition that is a necessary consequent of both X and P. In any possible world in which God performs X, it is the case that Y will obtain. Supposing that God decides to create beings like us, God must of necessity craft the moral laws of nature in a way that harmonizes with our nature. What grounds this necessity is that God must act consistently with the perfection of the divine nature: to give us a different law would be less than perfect. Furthermore, I argue that certain physical laws of nature – those that help to realize our nature – are also hypothetically necessary. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Pierre Bayle developed an expansive theory of toleration in his Commentaire philosophique by arguing that tolerance is a universal principle of natural law. However, by situating toleration in natural law rather than positive law, Bayle was brought into theoretical conflict with the Old Testament injunction that the state should punish idolatry. To resolve this conflict, Bayle drew upon the work of early modern Hebraists, particularly the Catholic biblical scholar Richard Simon. Bayle adapted Simon’s idea that theocracy uniquely shaped the (...) institutions of ancient Israel to argue that prohibitions against idolatry should be exclusive to the Hebrew republic. Bayle argued that the Mosaic Law did not punish someone for their sincerely held religious beliefs but only prohibited treason, and these circumstantial laws should not be emulated by other states. This allowed Bayle to contend for the moral veracity of the Old Testament and the notion that toleration is an unconditional principle of natural law. Bayle’s use of Simon displayed the revolutionary potential of textual critical scholarship in the early modern period, as he adapted Simon’s critical ideas to his own aims of promoting religious toleration within the ecclesiastical and civic spheres of his own confessional context. (shrink)