Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication Date

1981

Publication Information

26 Am. J. Juris. 21 (1981)

Abstract

In the preceding volume of this journal, Prof. Mclnerny criticized certain theoretical positions of Finnis and Grisez as well as their interpretation of St. Thomas. In the present article Finnis and Grisez reply that Mclnerny's criticisms lack cogency, because he has misunderstood their theories, judged their exegesis by his own different interpretation assumed gratuitously to be correct, and mixed philosophical and historical criticism in a way which helps to clarify neither the problems of ethical theory nor those of Thomistic exegesis.

Comments

Reprinted with permission of American Journal of Jurisprudence.

Share

COinS