Published on Forum Prawnicze, Dec. 2025 Read here
It is often claimed that the prevailing political and legal philosophy is positivism. This view is misleading. The dominant legal philosophy today is better understood as iusnaturalism—albeit a modern and individualistic form of it. This individualistic iusnaturalism constitutes the philosophical foundation of contemporary human rights discourse.
The central distinction between modern iusnaturalism and that of St. Thomas lies precisely in this individualism. For St. Thomas, natural law functions as the bond uniting human beings, grounded in the principle of solidarity. Modern individualism, by contrast, has overturned the classical conception of justice by severing it from the common good. The notion of general justice has been largely forgotten, and justice itself has been reduced, at best, to the vindication of individual freedom. From the modern standpoint, solidarity appears as a mere accessory—an external addition to this diminished understanding of justice—whereas in classical iusnaturalism solidarity represents the very expression of general justice.
This analysis first outlines the most salient features of individualistic iusnaturalism and then examines the fundamentally solidaristic dimension of Thomistic natural law. It ultimately affirms that solidarity constitutes the essence of all justice and that a moral life is, by its very nature, a life of solidarity. Modern iusnaturalism, which underpins contemporary human rights philosophy, stands in contrast as an individualistic and unsupportive framework, insofar as it weakens the sense of responsibility toward the common good. Its fundamental error lies in an inadequate understanding of human freedom. The proliferation of new and mutually contradictory “human rights” is one of the clearest manifestations of the internal inconsistency of modern iusnaturalism.