Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Stilpo, Baron de Montesquieu and Lucretius

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 2. The Law / c. Natural law
Prior to positive laws there is natural equity, of obedience, gratitude, dependence and merit [Montesquieu]
     Full Idea: The relations of equity precede the positive laws that establish them. It is right to conform to laws in a society; intelligent beings should be grateful for benefits; we remain dependent on those who create us; an injury merits the same in return.
     From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.01)
     A reaction: [the examples are compressed] A nice statement of the idea of natural law. It doesn't follow that because an injury merits retaliation, that it should be implemented (just that no one can complain if it happens).
Sensation gives animals natural laws, but knowledge can make them break them [Montesquieu]
     Full Idea: Animals have natural laws because they are united by sensation, ...but they do not invariably follow thieir natural laws; these are better observed by vegetables, which have neither knowledge nor sensation.
     From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.02)
     A reaction: With the example of vegetables the concept of natural law is drifting into the laws of nature, and evidently Montesquie makes no sharp distinction here.
25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 3. Punishment / a. Right to punish
The death penalty is permissible, because its victims enjoyed the protection of that law [Montesquieu]
     Full Idea: It is permissible to put a criminal to death because the law that punishes him was made to protect him. For example, a murderer has enjoyed the benefits of the law by which he is condemned.
     From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.02)
     A reaction: Dubious! We could add torture, and life imprisonment for parking offences, if this argument is sufficient justification.
If religion teaches determinism, penalties must be severe; if free will, then that is different [Montesquieu]
     Full Idea: When religion teaches that human actions are predetermined, penalties imposed by law ought to be more severe, for without these measures men would behave with complete abandon. If the dogma of religion is free will, the situation is altogether different.
     From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 24.14)
     A reaction: Presumably persuasion and influence come into the free will picture. Calvinist Geneva was determinist, and Catholic France for free will.