The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150 1625 (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion) (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (EUSLR))

Fine book received in new condition. Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Where does that idea come from? In this book Professor Tierney (Cornell) explores canon law, philosophy and history, particularly in middle ages and to communication of developmental ideas about human rights in cited works with footnoted comments, with some in Latin, with 348 pages of text, 18 pages of bibliography, and 11 pages of index.

I bought this book for a research paper for Law School. I LOVED this book. It does an excellent job of covering the idea of natural rights from the "medieval" period.

Brian Tierney, Professor Emeritus at Cornell has written the book on the genesis of modern natural rights thinking that all future scholars and students of the subject will have to digest. It is a common understanding that modern natural rights thinking began in the Enlightenment with the likes of Hobbes and Locke. Other claimants for the title include Grotius in the 17th century, the theologian Jean Gerson in the 15th century, earlier still Ockham, and Aquinas. Tierney argues that in fact it is in the thinking of the canon lawyers of the 12th and 13th centuries that one can discern the beginnings of modern natural rights thinking.This history of natural rights thinking between 1150 and 1625 is relevant to the important contemporary questions of whether natural rights is a "western" or more universal notion; of the scope or content of the idea of natural rights; of how the earlier classical and medieval ideas of natural rights relate to the modern notions; and of how natural law, the laws of nature, and natural rights, relate if at all.Because much of the discussion is about the meaning and understanding of medieval latin terms one regrets not paying more attention in high school latin class. That said Tierney makes it as easy as it can be with his lucid analytic style. Working ones way through this classic is well worth the effort.

A brilliant insight into medieval conceptualisations of natural rights theories, although by no means a definitive account.

Brian Tierney holds that all the writers of what used to be called the "Middle Ages" held that human rights included "positive rights" - goods and services at the compulsory expense of others, "compulsory charity" (dry rain, square circle).Nor does Tierney accept that one can support "natual law" rather than "natural rights" - he claims that the old writers used both terms (mixed together in their writings - in their thought) so one can not say "well I reject this human rights stuff - I will go back to natural law".For those who believe such concepts as "complusory charity" are an offense against human reason (just as a "square circle" is), and the idea that the basic needs of the population can (and should) be provided by the threat of VIOLENCE (whether by the state or by private criminals) is unsustainable, in both moral and economic terms, this is a problem.Were pro freedom (pro LIMITED government) people totally unrepresented in "pre modern" thought? Did all writers (theologians, legal writers.....) really agree that the basic needs of everyone should be provided by the threat of violence? Did no one have a basic grasp of logic so that doctrines such as "compulsory charity" (dry rain, square circle) were just accepted rather than laughed at? Or did the threat of being burned at the stake deal with the problem of theological and philosphical dissent? Or is Brian Tierney trying to justify the present by claiming that everyone agreed with the fashionable doctrines of "positive rights" that now dominate - even agreed with these doctrines many centuries ago. A bit like the old Russian saying "first they smash your face in - then they say you were always ugly".The doctrine that all land was given by God to human beings IN COMMON (so that private ownership has to be "justified") also, no surprise, is to be found in this work. For once Tierney does admit their was dissent regarding this doctrine (with some people holidng that God created the world for human beings - but not IN COMMON, but rather allowed human beings to justly claim property WITHOUT "as much and as good" being left for others), but he down plays this view - holding that even such writers as Hugo Grotius only held to it some of the time.Well is Tierney correct about all the above? I simply do not know - as I can not read Church Latin (or even classical Latin) and that is the language of the works Brian Tierney cites.However, I "hate" the work for either it is untrue (which is bad) or it shuts off the past from pro liberty people - meaning that all thougth in the "Middel Ages" and so on was based on non rational "reasoning" (such as "compulsory charity" - which is indeed as logical as a "square circle") and without any grasp of fundemental economics - a grasp that would show someone that trying to supply the basic needs of a population by the threat of violence (which must be the implication if they have a legal RIGHT to have these basic needs satisfied) must eventually lead to economic collapse and mass starvation.It would mean that (for example) libertarian talk of the "School of Salamanca" is in vain.