The normative role of 'basic goods' in the natural law jurisprudence of John Finnis: A critical assessment

John Finnis proposes that practical reason finds the basic meaning of all human choice and action in a set of self-evident ends. Finnis terms these ends, "basic goods." He suggests that "integral human fulfillment" is attained by honoring a set of equally self-evident requirements governing consistent respect for these same "basic goods." Such requirements have the character of moral obligation. In this view, the civil law exists to advance the observance of one such requirement: "that one foster and favour the common good." The normative evaluation of law follows from this same requirement. Finnis considers Aquinas his precursor. Thomas does indeed assume the existence of self-evident goods of choice and action, but, in contrast to Finnis's goods, which are not based in ontology, Thomas's represent modes of becoming fully a human being according to a conception of human nature. H. L. A. Hart is a liberal thinker who was Finnis's contemporary and teacher at Oxford. A comparison of Finnis and Hart shows that Hart's characteristically modern perspective interprets the data of moral consciousness in a way which rejects not only Aquinas's ontology, as does Finnis, but goes further and rejects Finnis's cognitive interpretation of "basic goods." Comparison also shows that Hart shares Finnis's concept of law as technique, but unlike Finnis, who still grasps law in relation to a moral purpose, Hart's considers such a technique to be morally neutral. These patterns of similarity and difference between the natural law jurisprudence of John Finnis and the theories, respectively pre-modern and liberal, of Aquinas and Hart point to the distinctive character of Finnis's "basic goods" reasoning and highlight some of its salient strengths and weaknesses.