John Finnis on the Pope on Natural Law
John Finnis has answered a series of questions from the Italian magazine Illusidario.net on the Pope’s recent speech before the Reichstag.
Finnis, as many of you know, wrote a classic book , Natural Law and Natural Rights, which is often cited as the foundational text of the so-called “new natural law” movement. Dissertations can and have been written on the nature and degree of its difference from the “old” natural law, and from Aquinas himself. His five volumes of collected essays have just appeared from OUP.
A very smart man, Finnis knows enough to spend the FALL in Notre Dame–and the winter and spring in Oxford, where he has taught his entire career.
I was struck by his reflection on the fundamental problem in political life:
The Pope quoted St. Augustine, who wrote: “Without justice – what else is the State but a great band of robbers?”. How does this risk still involve the politicians of our days?
The Pope locates this in several contexts. Immediately after the quotation, he goes on to speak of the Nazi seizure of power and use of power to crush law and right inside and outside Germany, and in the end to threaten the whole world. But just before the quotation he was speaking about a wider, more permanent, less spectacular but real and harmful risk: the seduction of success – political success – at the expense of right, success through falsification of what is right and destruction (on whatever scale) of justice. This temptation is one that concerns all politicians of all times. And then, if we put Augustine’s comment back into its context in book 4 of De Civitate Dei, we find the saint putting his finger on the precise source of the pervasive corruption of politics: cupiditas, covetousness. This can be a matter (to take Augustine’s immediate illustrations) of money, territory, sadism, sex, or simply power for its own sake. If we seek evidence of this in our own days, we need only look around us.
Do you agree with Finnis that the vice of “covetousness” is the main source of corruption in politics today?
This is a very difficult question to answer, since it may force one to admit that Republicans are mistaken rather than evil. :P
I think it is ideology much more than covetousness that causes politics in the United States, particularly relatively recently, to be so difficult. Kathryn Schulz (Being Wrong) tells us that when someone disagrees with us, our first assumption is the Ignorance Assumption. They just don’t know the facts. But when we get a sense of them and discover they are using the same facts we are, we move on to the Idiocy Assumption. They have the facts, but they’re too dumb to arrive at the right conclusion. When we discover that they seem pretty intelligent and still disagree with us, we move along to the Evil Assumption. They know everything we know, they have figured out all the implications, and they are publicly pretending to take a position different from ours because they have base motives.
It is hard not to make the Evil Assumption when it comes to politics, but I try to tell myself that people who, say, won’t provide disaster relief in an emergency unless they can find something else to cut to pay for it are actually seriously concerned about “fiscal responsibility” (or else they are constrained by what they can do because of other members of their party who feel that way).
So I think that the disastrous flaws we see in our political system right now are not the result of covetousness, but of clashing ideologies that both sides take very seriously. They may look like hypocrites when they are the party in power and either do what they condemned the other party for doing when it was in power, or when they are out of power and condemn the party in power for things that they did when they are in power, but I am sure in general they are able to convince thenselves that “this time it’s different.”
If psychoanalysis worked, that might help. But I think there is something powerful going on at an unconscious level that causes people to disagree politically and have bitter partisan battles. If it’s covetousness, it is on the unconscious level. I don’t think a good examination of conscience is what all of our politicians need in order to work together harmoniously. I think they need some kind of therapy, and I really rather doubt that even that would work.
Hello Cathy (and All),
I guess after thinking about it for just two hours, I initially disagree with Finnis’ claim that covetousness is the source of the contemporary corruption of politics. (Finnis’ exact words here could be taken as his thinking that covetousness is the one and only cause of this corruption. You’re probably right that Finnis thinks covetousness is the most important cause, even if it is not the only cause.) I don’t want to downplay the importance of covetousness, but I suspect the real “culprit” cause is short sightedness. I’m struck by how often in recent years I’ve noticed influential people express willingness to disregard or abolish rules that support justice in order to achieve immediate gain. One example only (that I give because I found it so striking then and still): I recall a few short years ago that some leaders of the Republican majority in the Senate proposed abolishing the right to filibuster. At the time I thought John McCain asked exactly the right question: “Won’t we want to exercise this right when we are in the minority?”. And (at least in the news reports I read at the time), the response he received was the claim that the Republicans would never again be in the minority. No arguments regarding the actual merits of, or problems, with the practice of filibuster itself, just in effect a claim that only “others” would ever lose if the right to the practice were revoked.
Of course, I’ll have to admit that my opinion might be shaped by years of studying figures in the modern natural law tradition like Hume and Hobbes, who stress our tendency towards short-sightedness and who argue that part of the function of justice is to set checks against this tendency. I haven’t yet seen much discussion of short-sightedness in either the classical natural law tradition of Augustine and Aquinas or its contemporary successor, the “new natural law” tradition of Finnis and Mark Murphy. (Maybe I just need to read more!) But the moderns are not the only ones who worry about short-sightedness. Before Plato and Aristotle, Thucydides records how the Athenians failed to take to heart an explicit warning that their violations of justice would result in eventual disaster, and in fact the Athenians did suffer the predicted disaster.
And just to add to your comment, as a student of (mainly modern) natural law I have found Finnis’ “Natural Law and Natural Rights” invaluable even though I often disagree with its contents. But I balked at the price of his recently published set of collected essays.
Do you agree with Finnis that the vice of “covetousness” is the main source of corruption in politics today?
Some would call it corruption, others might call it “economic justice,” but there is no denying that in politics today there are an awful lot of people who want other people’s stuff for themselves, and who thus promote policies by which to take that stuff.
“…there is no denying that in politics today there are an awful lot of people who want other people’s stuff for themselves, and who thus promote policies by which to take that stuff.”
If you can figure out how to get someone who works for you to work much harder, why shouldn’t you take 100 percent of the new output? The worker is “your stuff” too!
Is the vice of “covetousness” the main source of corruption in politics today?
The answer to this question will depend of the definition of “covetousness.”
If we define “covetousness” as inordinate desire for something, allowing that the something in question may vary depending on the circumstances in a given context, then yes, inordinate desire for something is by definition the main source of corruption in politics today. In other words, yes, covetousness is the main source of corruption in politics today.
But let’s examine our definition a bit further.
When we define covetousness as the inordinate desire for something, then by implication we suggest that inordinate desire may be counteracted in ourselves and in our politicians by desire that is not inordinate.
Thus there is a possibility of desire that is not inordinate.
But this is something that we need to work at to cultivate in ourselves.
In a similar way, this is something that politicians need to work at to cultivate in themselves.
But to cultivate the kinds of desire in ourselves that are not inordinate, we need to examine different forms of desire in order to figure out for ourselves which kinds of desires we should consider to be inordinate desires.
After we have considered a certain number of examples of inordinate desires, presumably in other people, or possibly in works of fiction on television or in movies or in works of imaginative literature, we need to turn our attention examining ourselves and our own conduct for signs of inordinate desires.
In today’s psychological parlance, obsessive and compulsive behaviors usually represent inordinate desires of one kind or another.
So we can examine ourselves and our behavior for obsessive and compulsive behaviors as examples of inordinate desires.
In addition, we can examine ourselves for different kinds of addictive behaviors as examples of inordinate desires.
When we begin to recognize inordinate desires in ourselves, then we can go to work to counteract them in ourselves one by one.
The same kind of examining of oneself can be undertaken by politicians today who desire to identify and counteract their inordinate desires in themselves.
However, when our politicians today fail to counteract inordinate desires in themselves and instead act out their inordinate desires through their political acts, then corruption of one sort or another will usually follow as a matter of course.
Under the best of circumstances, when corruption in politics is recognized by others, those others will in turn act to clean up and counteract the corruption.
For what it’s worth, I resist any attempt to find either the “basic problem” or the “fundamental problem” in political life. Peter Vanderschraff is surely right in pointing out the matter of short-sightedness, and one could rightly mention hubris. At bottom, though, the perennial political task is to deal with the “paradox” that any political society inevitably has rulers who, while preserving the coercive power of the state, have as their ultimate, but never definitively achievable, objective to respect and work for the benefit of all the society’s members. Because circumstances constantly change, practical wisdom is always necessary. Whatever works to thwart the search for or exercise of practical wisdom is a threat to the society’s well-being. In that sense, political laziness or thoughtlessness can be a huge political vice.
This may make him retract his comments, but I think David Nickol is the closest to the mark. There just seems to be something systemic askew on the federal level that makes otherwise common sense folks (most of them) become some double-headed partisan monster once up there. I think this has played out in the last 2 presidencies; for all their strengths & weaknesses, both Bush & Obama have shown tendencies to defect on big issues from their constituencies. Yet in office, they’ve been overcome by these rigid partisan battles in ways really hard to comprehend. It’s amazing that it’s not just disagreement, but a view that the other’s POV is really illegitimate, and more, a threat to the very foundation of the country.
Of course the quick response among some is “money;” but I don’t buy that. For one thing, most big money people give more-or-less equally to both parties, and those that tend to give to only one side or another are usually much more moderate than the base. I suspect the overall cultural fracturing that social media has engendered is somewhat to blame. It’s amazing how many people never read anything that contradicts their opinion; and yet in today’s world, one really doesn’t have to read anything one views as illegitimate.
We shouldn’t forget that covetousness can tame the other vices. Cf. Albert Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Hamilton, Madison and many others contended that “one set of passions, hitherto known variously as greed, avarice, or love of lucre, could be usefully employed to oppose and bridle such other passions as ambition, lust for power, or sexual lust.”
One might conclude that if covetousness is our worst vice, that’s a relatively good thing. There will always be a worst vice under any circumstance and having covetousness in that place rather than most of the other possibilities is not the worst thing imaginable. If our Donald Trumps couldn’t build their palazzos they might be tempted by Alexander the Great or Napoleonic dreams. Here I won’t even allude to Hitler, but unless the concept is extremely elastic it wasn’t covetousness that motivated that monster. I will mention Stalin, Mao, etc.
James Q. Wilson often reminds his readers of the great social change that occurred when men decided to get rich rather than bloody. At least one and a half cheers for covetousness (legal covetousness, of course).
Not to be Jesuitical or Machiavellian, but which other vice would be a better worst vice?
I assume corruption here means someone getting something of value by unjust means. Then, of course, people are corrupt in my experience because they are greedy. They want what they didn’t earn or aren’t entitled to. This vice, again in my experience, is endemic (not universal) in business, but also in the church and even universities. Lower paid employees can be greedy, even if they covet less. And the object of the greed can range form money, to sex, or just to somebody else’s larger office, etc. Greed has decrees, as does corruption. Was Augustine greedy when he banished his long term partner and took sole control of their son. Absolutely. A parent can be greedy about their kids when they want to exclude their partner. The parent’s actions in exclusive access to their children is a denial of the rights of their partner. I am doubtful Augustine saw this, but even in a different culture, he should have. Even the mighty fall occasionally, but this was a pretty steep fall. You all must know that. I will stop here before I get hammered for going off topic again. Have a nice weekend all.
“One might conclude that if covetousness is our worst vice, that’s a relatively good thing. There will always be a worst vice under any circumstance and having covetousness in that place rather than most of the other possibilities is not the worst thing imaginable.”
For me, it is far more interesting to look at how the various defenders of particular vices come up with defenses for them. It is the stuff that great novels are made from.
Cathy –
If If you think (as I do) that the main source of corruption is the rich folk who buy legislators to protect their wealth and way of life then, Yes, covetousness is the main source.
But if the question is about the main political/moral failure of most people, then No, I don’t thnk it is covetousness. The middle-class is only now starting to get angry at the fact that so many of the rich pay little or no taxes. If the middle-class were greedy they would have gotten rid of the enablers (the Republicans) after one election cycle.
Peter V.’s hypothesis is a very interesting one, I think, and short-sightedness could easily be the great failure of most of the electorate. But why are we so short-sighted? I think it’s because the non-elite schools do not train people to think abstractly, they don’t train them to think about complex problems, and consequently they don’t train them to think ahead — plus there is already an anti-intellectual factor in our culture. Too often the people just don’t vote for their own self-interests. On the other hand, the rich don’t usually get and stay rich if they don’t think ahead, so they’re not part of that particular problem.
If, as Bender says, most people are hoping to get hold of the wealth of the rich, well, if that were true, then the non-rich would not have allowed this unjust situation in which the non-rich pay taxes while many of the rich pay little or none. Greedy people don’t pay other people’s taxes. No, it is the rich wanting to keep more than their fair share of profits– and no taxes — that is the source of the wealth imbalance.
A general cultural problem is that people seem to tolerate bare-faced lies from politicians more than they used to. There has been an honesty gap on all sides.
Patrick:
Yes, covetousness can and does include covetousness for material wealth (aka greed or avarice), as you say.
As you may know, Chaucer’s Pardoner liked to preach that avarice is the root of all evil. However, other medieval preachers like to preach that pride is the root of all evil. So which is it — avarice or pride?
As you say, covetousness for material wealth can hold in check other vices, some of which can lead to violence.
However, in the definition of covetousness that I have set forth above, covetousness for material wealth is only one form of covetousness.
Another form of covetousness as I have defined it above (i.e., inordinate desire for something) would be the inordinate desire for power, which might be accompanied by violence and disregard for human life, as it was in some of the cases that you have mentioned.
As I noted in the latrst thread. our front page news today is that state GOP is suing as in other staters to lift campaign donation restrictkions.
Money and power are vital to understanding the ynamic of what’s happened -ask the Koch Brothers and Judge Roberts.
I think other explanations are minimizing the downward spiral in the division bwteen rich nad poor in the American plutocracy.
So we get ‘Occupy Wall St.” as a growing phenomenon and Eric Cantor bewailing the”mob.” etc. etc.