tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post4195369263171710695..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: On Calvin, rights and politicsBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-50068731488389154712009-08-24T09:10:57.881-04:002009-08-24T09:10:57.881-04:00Ah. I see.Ah. I see.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-38221193891032190102009-08-23T21:51:30.148-04:002009-08-23T21:51:30.148-04:00Good question, Shane. For an answer, I refer you t...Good question, Shane. For an answer, I refer you to the terrifying body of scholarship on exactly this question. (And Annabel Brett's book is really superb.)<br /><br />The usual distinction is that a subjective right is a "quality of the subject", while an objective right is the right thing (<i>iustum</i>) for that subject. The first refers to something that an individual possesses; the second can refer more to a society's (or simply a magistrate's) obligations.<br /><br />I guess the distinction becomes most vivid in Hobbes: individual citizens have no rights at all (i.e. no subjective rights), but the prince has certain rights and obligations regarding the people.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-82570702747126034702009-08-23T21:14:18.596-04:002009-08-23T21:14:18.596-04:00What the hell is a subjective right?
If a "...What the hell is a subjective right? <br /><br />If a "right" = a legal entitlement to something, then aren't they all <i>by definition</i> 'objective' rights since the law is objective?<br /><br />swShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-3393764870338514242009-08-23T14:38:29.014-04:002009-08-23T14:38:29.014-04:00Mike, you're right about Wolterstorff — his bo...Mike, you're right about Wolterstorff — his book on justice will definitely be mentioned. In a very small way, I guess I'm trying to sketch a brief counter-history to the one Wolterstorff advances, since (partly for the reasons John mentions in his comment above) I'm not a fan of rights-based politics.<br /><br />Brian, thanks for suggesting that article in the <i>Calvin Handbook</i>. I've just read this and it's an excellent piece; I've promptly ordered the handbook as well (I didn't even know it had been translated, so thanks for the heads up!).<br /><br />Oh, and since my paper is full of references to Quentin Skinner's <i>Foundations of Modern Political Thought</i> Volume 2, it occurs to me that I should also have mentioned this in my post. But Skinner goes without saying. (Just as no one mentions "the Bible" on their list of favourite books: res ipsa loquitur.)Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-25443813303431955272009-08-23T12:36:08.748-04:002009-08-23T12:36:08.748-04:00Surely it is a huge hermeneutical mistake to show ...Surely it is a huge hermeneutical mistake to show the slighest interest in getting behind the text to some so-called "historical Hauerwas". What next, a "Stan the Man Seminar"?kim fabriciusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-56969619030502492492009-08-23T12:19:53.753-04:002009-08-23T12:19:53.753-04:00I'm sticking with the little golden book.I'm sticking with the little golden book.roger flyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55122987959433972572009-08-23T11:43:01.938-04:002009-08-23T11:43:01.938-04:00I just realized he has a blog (that you already li...I just realized he has a blog (that you already link to). You should check out his book in the New Slant series that Goodchild and Surin edit. I've also heard good things from Alberto Toscano about his Criticism of Heaven book. Boer may be my personal hero even if he has widely different academic interests.Anthony Paul Smithhttp://itself.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-36173865525727199732009-08-23T11:03:54.158-04:002009-08-23T11:03:54.158-04:00Actually Anthony, in his preface to this book he e...Actually Anthony, in his preface to this book he explains that he wrote the whole book on a ship at sea. (I have to reiterate: it's a marvellous preface.)<br /><br />And I'm glad I wasn't the only one who felt deflated and disillusioned when the Hauerwas anecdote was exposed as apocryphal. I guess this illustrates Boer's claim in his Calvin book: sometimes, historical accuracy just takes all the fun out of a good story.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35890404948398902652009-08-23T10:37:20.165-04:002009-08-23T10:37:20.165-04:00Boer is really great. I heard a rumor that he only...Boer is really great. I heard a rumor that he only travels on boats and won't fly. No one ruin that story for me like you all did that fucking great Hauerwas one!Anthony Paul Smithhttp://itself.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-41118650903294778832009-08-23T08:39:20.411-04:002009-08-23T08:39:20.411-04:00The recently published English edition of the Calv...The recently published English edition of the Calvin Handbook, has the following short bibliography under the heading Politics and Social Life (a very good 12 page section by Dolf Britz)<br /><br />- Bieler, A. La Pensee economique et sociale de Calvin. 1959.<br />- Bohatec, Josef. Calvins Lehre von Staat und Kirche mit besonderer Berucksichtigung des Organismusgedankens. 1937. <br />- Hipfl, Harro. The Christian Polity of John Calvin. 1982.<br />- Kingdom, R.M., and R.D. Linder, eds. Calvin and Calvinism: Sources of Democracy? 1970.<br />- Olson, J. Calvin and Social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Francoise. 1989.<br />- Schulze, Ludi. Calvin and "Social Ethics": His Views on Property, Interest and Usury. 1985.Brian Lugioyohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17193433683571333753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-60397934910191397902009-08-23T08:07:57.973-04:002009-08-23T08:07:57.973-04:00The first issue that comes to mind, of course, has...The first issue that comes to mind, of course, has to do with the tendency of the human rights tradition to divorce rights from obligations. <br /><br />In Calvin, rights are discussed in the context of obligations. Are rights "denatured" when they are divorced from that context? I would think so.<br /><br />Secondly, if one thinks theologically in German, the fundamental pair for a theological anthropology is: Zuspruch Gottes - Anspruch Gottes (in that order). Does this pair no longer apply in a political anthropology? I would think they still apply. If so, is there any air left in the room for "rights" as a linchpin of political theology?John Hobbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011346264727684917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-49677509273028737222009-08-23T07:18:12.572-04:002009-08-23T07:18:12.572-04:00If you want to look at recent developments/defense...If you want to look at recent developments/defenses of subjective rights in the Reformed tradition, Wolterstorff's recent Justice: Rights and Wrongs is an excellent work (he leans on Tierney in several places as well).mike dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17529730855507467576noreply@blogger.com