Název: Between divine right monarchy and natural freedom of mankind
Variantní název:
- Mezi monarchií založenou na božím právu a přirozenou svobodou lidstva
Zdrojový dokument: Studia philosophica. 2022, roč. 69, č. 2, s. 27-44
Rozsah
27-44
-
ISSN1803-7445 (print)2336-453X (online)
Trvalý odkaz (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/SPh2022-2-3
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/digilib.77293
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
The paper examines Robert Filmer's arguments in defence of the divine right of kings in Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. Filmer argues that human beings are not born free by nature and, as a result, are expected to obey the kings/monarchs absolutely without questioning, due to the arbitrary power and the divine right bestowed upon the kings. This position defended by Filmer is antithetical to the notion of natural freedom of mankind defended by John Locke and other social contract theorists. Contrary to Filmer's view, this paper suggests that Filmer exaggerated the power of kings. In this paper, I wish to critically examine Filmer's arguments with which he supported his claim. The paper argues against Filmer's divine right monarchy for the following reasons: (i) it lacks rational justification, (ii) it was founded on misinterpretation of the scriptures, and (iii) it fails to address the atheists' question. In the final analysis, the paper concludes with the argument that the question of mutual exclusivity of the concepts in the discussion rests upon manifest misinterpretations of divine right and the natural freedom of mankind.
Článek se zabývá argumenty Roberta Filmera na obranu božského práva králů v knize Patriarcha aneb Přirozená moc králů. Filmer tvrdí, že lidé se nerodí přirozeně svobodní, a proto se od nich očekává, že budou krále poslouchat bez jakýchkoli výhrad z toho důvodu, že králům byly propůjčeny moc a božské právo. Tento Filmerem obhajovaný postoj je v rozporu s pojetím přirozené svobody člověka, kterou hájil John Locke a další teoretici společenské smlouvy. Tento článek naznačuje, že Filmer moc králů přeceňuje. V článku chci kriticky prozkoumat Filmerovy argumenty, jimiž své tvrzení podporoval. Příspěvek polemizuje s Filmerovou tezí o božském právu monarchie z následujících důvodů: (i) teze postrádá racionální zdůvodnění, (ii) byla založena na nesprávném výkladu Písma a (iii) neřeší otázku ateistů. V závěru článek předkládá argument, že otázka vzájemné výlučnosti diskutovaných pojmů spočívá na zjevně nesprávné interpretaci božského práva a přirozené svobody člověka.
Reference
[1] AUDI, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.
[2] BENHABIB, Seyla. Another Universalism: On the Unity and Diversity of Human Rights. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. 2007, 81(2), pp. 7–32.
[3] FIGGIS, John Neville. The Divine Right of Kings. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1914.
[4] FILMER, Robert. Patriarcha and Other Writings. Edited by Johann P. SOMMERVILLE. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press 1996.
[5] FILMER, Robert. Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. London: DCK Book Binder 1680.
[6] GEERTZ, Clifford. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2000.
[7] HART, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. Are There Any Natural Rights? Philosophical Review. 1955, 64(5), pp. 175–191.
[8] LASLETT, Peter. Introduction. In FILMER Robert. Patriarcha and Other Political Works. Oxford: Blackwell's Political Texts 1949.
[9] LOCKE, John. Two Treatise of Government. London: Thomas Tegg 1823.
[10] LOCKE, John. Two Treatises of Government. Revised edition. Edited and introduced by Peter LASLETT. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press 1963.
[11] MACINTYRE, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Second Edition. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press 1984.
[12] JAMES I, King of England 1566–1625. A Speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall, on Wednesday the XXI. of March. Anno Dom 1609 (1610). In The Workes of the most high and mightie Prince, James, by the grace of God King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c. London 1616.
[13] ROUSSEAU, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract. New York: Hafner Publishing Co. 1947.
[14] SABINE, George Holland. Filmer and Sidney. In SABINE, George H. – CORWIN, Edward S. (eds.). A History of Political Theory. London 1951, pp. 434–437.
[15] TUCK, Richard. A New Date for Filmer's Patriarcha. The Historical Journal. 1986, 29(1), pp. 183–186.
[16] WILLOUGHBY, Westel Woodbury. Review of The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings by John Neville Figgis. Political Science Quarterly. 1897, 12(1), pp. 158–160.
[17] YEZZI, Ronald. Medical Ethics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1980.
[18] ZAGORIN, Perez. A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1954.
[19] The Holy Bible, King James Version. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.
[2] BENHABIB, Seyla. Another Universalism: On the Unity and Diversity of Human Rights. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. 2007, 81(2), pp. 7–32.
[3] FIGGIS, John Neville. The Divine Right of Kings. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1914.
[4] FILMER, Robert. Patriarcha and Other Writings. Edited by Johann P. SOMMERVILLE. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press 1996.
[5] FILMER, Robert. Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. London: DCK Book Binder 1680.
[6] GEERTZ, Clifford. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2000.
[7] HART, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. Are There Any Natural Rights? Philosophical Review. 1955, 64(5), pp. 175–191.
[8] LASLETT, Peter. Introduction. In FILMER Robert. Patriarcha and Other Political Works. Oxford: Blackwell's Political Texts 1949.
[9] LOCKE, John. Two Treatise of Government. London: Thomas Tegg 1823.
[10] LOCKE, John. Two Treatises of Government. Revised edition. Edited and introduced by Peter LASLETT. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press 1963.
[11] MACINTYRE, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Second Edition. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press 1984.
[12] JAMES I, King of England 1566–1625. A Speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall, on Wednesday the XXI. of March. Anno Dom 1609 (1610). In The Workes of the most high and mightie Prince, James, by the grace of God King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c. London 1616.
[13] ROUSSEAU, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract. New York: Hafner Publishing Co. 1947.
[14] SABINE, George Holland. Filmer and Sidney. In SABINE, George H. – CORWIN, Edward S. (eds.). A History of Political Theory. London 1951, pp. 434–437.
[15] TUCK, Richard. A New Date for Filmer's Patriarcha. The Historical Journal. 1986, 29(1), pp. 183–186.
[16] WILLOUGHBY, Westel Woodbury. Review of The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings by John Neville Figgis. Political Science Quarterly. 1897, 12(1), pp. 158–160.
[17] YEZZI, Ronald. Medical Ethics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1980.
[18] ZAGORIN, Perez. A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1954.
[19] The Holy Bible, King James Version. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.