格劳秀斯和普芬多夫论必然性的权利

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT Pub Date : 2005-06-01 DOI:10.4324/9781315093376-8
J. Salter
{"title":"格劳秀斯和普芬多夫论必然性的权利","authors":"J. Salter","doi":"10.4324/9781315093376-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Grotius and Pufendorf upheld the principle that a person in extreme and unavoidable need, who took from the surpluses of property holders, was not guilty of the crime of theft. Grotius theorized this exception to the law of property as a revival of the original common use right, thus continuing a long-standing tradition of thought according to which in extremis all goods are regarded as common. Pufendorf�s engagement with Hobbes led him to reject the Grotian theory of the revival of the common use right. He tried to construct an alternative theory by making use of his concepts of imperfect rights and duties, but he had no way of expressing the lawfulness of the actions of the necessitous poor in terms of the imperfect duties of the rich. As a result Pufendorf failed to produce a coherent alternative to the Grotian theory.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2005-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grotius and Pufendorf on the Right of Necessity\",\"authors\":\"J. Salter\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315093376-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Grotius and Pufendorf upheld the principle that a person in extreme and unavoidable need, who took from the surpluses of property holders, was not guilty of the crime of theft. Grotius theorized this exception to the law of property as a revival of the original common use right, thus continuing a long-standing tradition of thought according to which in extremis all goods are regarded as common. Pufendorf�s engagement with Hobbes led him to reject the Grotian theory of the revival of the common use right. He tried to construct an alternative theory by making use of his concepts of imperfect rights and duties, but he had no way of expressing the lawfulness of the actions of the necessitous poor in terms of the imperfect duties of the rich. As a result Pufendorf failed to produce a coherent alternative to the Grotian theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093376-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093376-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

格劳秀斯和普芬多夫坚持这样的原则,即一个处于极端和不可避免的需要的人,从财产所有者的剩余中取钱,不犯盗窃罪。格劳秀斯将财产法的这一例外理论化为原始共同使用权的复兴,从而延续了一种长期存在的思想传统,即在极端情况下,所有物品都被视为共同的。普芬多夫与霍布斯的接触使他拒绝了格罗田关于公共使用权复兴的理论。他试图利用他的不完美权利和义务的概念来构建另一种理论,但他无法用富人的不完美义务来表达必要穷人行为的合法性。因此,普芬多夫没能提出一个与格罗田理论相一致的替代理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Grotius and Pufendorf on the Right of Necessity
Grotius and Pufendorf upheld the principle that a person in extreme and unavoidable need, who took from the surpluses of property holders, was not guilty of the crime of theft. Grotius theorized this exception to the law of property as a revival of the original common use right, thus continuing a long-standing tradition of thought according to which in extremis all goods are regarded as common. Pufendorf�s engagement with Hobbes led him to reject the Grotian theory of the revival of the common use right. He tried to construct an alternative theory by making use of his concepts of imperfect rights and duties, but he had no way of expressing the lawfulness of the actions of the necessitous poor in terms of the imperfect duties of the rich. As a result Pufendorf failed to produce a coherent alternative to the Grotian theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: History of Political Thought (HPT) is a quarterly journal which was launched in 1980 to fill a genuine academic need for a forum for work in this multi-disciplinary area. Although a subject central to the study of politics and history, researchers in this field had previously to compete for publication space in journals whose intellectual centres of gravity were located in other disciplines. The journal is devoted exclusively to the historical study of political ideas and associated methodological problems. The primary focus is on research papers, with extensive book reviews and bibliographic surveys also included. All articles are refereed.
期刊最新文献
Hobbes and the Perpetual Person of the State Leo Strauss, The Latin Averroists and the Eternity of the World Humboldt’s Individualism: Theorizing Social Individuality Rousseau, Franklin and Bourgeois Liberalism Machiavelli’s Warning: The Medici, Florence, Rome and New Princes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1