Contractualismo y epistemología en las teorías de la tolerancia de Francisco Suárez y John Locke
In this paper I will argue that the different ways Francisco Suárez and John Locke understand the original contract imply widely different conclusions regarding toleration. Specifically, I will hold that the "strange doctrine" advanced by Locke in his Second Treatise of Government -regardi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2024
|
| In: |
Cauriensia
Year: 2024, Volume: 19, Pages: 707-736 |
| Further subjects: | B
Suárez
B Epistemología B contractualismo B Locke B tolerancia |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | In this paper I will argue that the different ways Francisco Suárez and John Locke understand the original contract imply widely different conclusions regarding toleration. Specifically, I will hold that the "strange doctrine" advanced by Locke in his Second Treatise of Government -regarding the right to punish in the state of nature transgressions to the natural law- expresses a "neutralist" epistemological position, which in turns grounds the Letter concerning Toleration’s reasoning. On the contrary, Suárez’s arguments in favor of as well as against toleration, particularly those of De fide, can be explained by a "socially situated" epistemological position, which is consonant with the understanding Suárez has of the birth of the political community. En este artículo argumentaré que las diferencias entre Francisco Suárez y John Locke con respecto a la naturaleza del contrato originario comportan conclusiones muy dispares en sus respectivas posiciones sobre la tolerancia. Específicamente, sostendré que la "extraña doctrina", defendida por Locke en el Segundo tratado sobre el gobierno civil, acerca del derecho de castigar violaciones a la ley natural en el estado de naturaleza revela una posición epistemológica "neutralista", la que a su vez está en la base de la argumentación de Carta sobre la tolerancia. Por el contrario, los argumentos suarecianos tanto a favor como en contra de la tolerancia, particularmente en De fide, pueden explicarse por una posición epistemológica "socialmente situada", la que se corresponde con la manera en que Suárez entiende el surgimiento de la comunidad política. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2340-4256 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Cauriensia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.17398/2340-4256.19.707 |
