Abstract
This philosophical dissertation challenges Schneewind’s “dogma” that Kant invented the conception of morality as autonomy; yet, even more surprising, we are told that it was Francisco de Vitoria, OP, who long before Kant had developed such a concept.
In order to make his argument, Spindler first establishes that Domingo de Soto, OP, taught a morality derived from nature while the Jesuit, Francisco Suarez, held on to a divine command theory. In a next step, based on recent scholarship (esp. Wolfgang Kluxenand Hannes Möhle), Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus are shown to be much more sophisticated than de Soto and Suarez, and in fact preparing Vitoria’s conception. Vitoria becomes thus the exception to the Salamanca School as he reconstructs the universal demand of morality and leaves the paradigm behind that morality has to be obedience towards God (or nature). For him a person has moral responsibility if he or she has the faculty to reason (usus rationis)—but that the latter is only the case if they have the ability to determine their actions through reasonable considerations, which fall under this normative and highest principle of practical reason. Thus the legislation of practical reason subdues judgment and will. By reconstructing that for Vitoria the natural inclinations only derive from the judgment of practical reason about human goods and not vice versa (191) he further buttresses his point. Practical reason is established as autonomous reason of morality, and Schneewind’s claim that nobody before Kant tried to achieve such grounding is refuted.
S.’s work is one of the most fascinating studies in the history of ethics in decades. His reading of the texts is careful and his judgments are mature and diligent, which makes his case all the more convincing. The editors of the series have to be congratulated for such an outstanding contribution. It is to be hoped that S. will soon present a translation of some of Vitoria’s texts so that they can be used in the classroom; moreover, his book has also increased the reviewer’s interest in de Soto, of whom even fewer texts are readily available. Thus, this volume is also a painful reminder about the sad state of historical theology in which the centuries from Trent to Vatican I are eclipsed despite their fascinating content.