de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturrecht
3 corrections found
Sapientae christianae
The encyclical title is misspelled. Pope Leo XIII’s 1890 encyclical is titled “Sapientiae Christianae,” not “Sapientae christianae.”
Full reasoning
The cited papal document’s official title on the Vatican website is “Sapientiae Christianae (January 10, 1890)”. The article omits the second i in Sapientiae, producing a title that does not match the official text.
Because encyclical titles are fixed proper titles, this is a straightforward factual error in the document name, not a matter of interpretation.
1 source
- Sapientiae Christianae (January 10, 1890)
Sapientiae Christianae (January 10, 1890) ... ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON CHRISTIANS AS CITIZENS
Dominico de Soto
This theologian’s name is misspelled. The major School of Salamanca figure was Domingo de Soto, not “Dominico de Soto.”
Full reasoning
Standard scholarly references identify the sixteenth-century Dominican theologian and jurist as Domingo de Soto. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses Francisco de Vitoria’s disciple Domingo de Soto (1494–1560), and Cambridge University Library’s exhibition on Dominican books likewise titles the entry “Domingo de Soto (1494–1560)”.
That makes the list entry “Dominico de Soto” a factual name error rather than an alternative accepted spelling.
2 sources
- School of Salamanca (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The most important of these was Domingo de Soto, who was born in Segovia 1494 ...
- Soto | 800 years of Dominican books
Domingo de Soto (1494-1560) ... Domingo de Soto studied at Alcalá and then Paris before becoming a Dominican in 1524.
Die Naturrechtsphilosophen Grotius, Pufendorf und Locke, die alle drei Protestanten waren, entgingen der Vieldeutigkeit des begrifflichen Naturrechts, indem sie es mit der biblischen Offenbarung gleichsetzten.
This overstates and misdescribes these thinkers, especially Grotius and Pufendorf. Standard references describe their modern natural-law theories as emphasizing reason and, in Pufendorf’s case, explicitly eschewing religious appeals rather than simply equating natural law with biblical revelation.
Full reasoning
The sentence makes a strong collective claim that Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke escaped the ambiguity of natural law by equating it with biblical revelation. That is not accurate for at least Grotius and Pufendorf.
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Hugo Grotius says Grotius was important because he “removed natural law from the jurisdiction of the moral theologian” and made it the concern of lawyers and philosophers. That directly contradicts the idea that Grotius simply identified natural law with biblical revelation.
- The Stanford Encyclopedia’s entry on Pufendorf describes his approach as “secular, non-metaphysical, and anti-authoritarian” and says it “eschewed religious appeals”. That is likewise inconsistent with saying he equated natural law with biblical revelation.
These are not minor nuances: Grotius and Pufendorf are widely treated as central figures in a modern natural-law tradition that sought to ground natural law in reason and human sociability rather than collapse it into revealed scripture. Even if Locke made much heavier use of biblical materials, the article’s collective statement about all three philosophers is too broad and factually misleading.
2 sources
- Hugo Grotius (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2010 Edition)
Schneewind (1998) thinks Grotius was important because he "removed natural law from the jurisdiction of the moral theologian… and made its theory the responsibility of lawyers and philosophers".
- Pufendorf's Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2019 Edition)
Pufendorf's approach was secular, non-metaphysical, and anti-authoritarian; it eschewed religious appeals, scholastic dogma, essentialism, teleology...