Studia humana (SH) is a multi-disciplinary peer reviewed journal publishing valuable
contributions on any aspect of human sciences such as...
read more...

 

Anthony J. Cesario

Anthony J. Cesario is an undergraduate student studying economics at Loyola University, New Orleans.


 

ARTICLES:

The School of Salamanca’s Reconciliation of Economics and Religion

Issue: 9:2 (the thirty fourth issue)
Many years before Adam Smith, numerous theologians associated with the
School of Salamanca, such as Domingo de Soto, Juan de Lugo, Juan de
Mariana, Luís Saravia de la Calle, Martin de Azpilcueta, Luis de Molina,
Leonard Lessius, Thomas Cajetan, and Francisco Garcia had made great strides
in the development of economics. Specifically, these theologians, otherwise
known as the “Scholastics,” analyzed and argued against price and wage
controls by explaining that the only “just” prices and wages are those that are
set by the market, examined and pushed back against prohibitions on usury,
understood the concept of time preference, and helped develop monetary
theory in multiple ways. They also demonstrated that all of this was consistent
with the Catholic religion. This paper analyzes the ways in which these early
theologians contributed to the development of economics and reconciled it with
their Catholicism.


Reconciling the Irreconcilable: A Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Animal Rights Debate

Issue: 0:0 (Early View)
Libertarianism is understood to be a “deontological theory of law” that purportedly applies exclusively to humans [1, p. 275]. According to some libertarians, however, “one of the greatest weaknesses of libertarian theory” is that there are no provisions outlawing the abuse and torture of animals even though this seems to be one of “the most heinous acts it is possible to do” [14, p. 83]. Moreover, a few of these libertarians go even further and claim that this legal philosophy of non-aggression should actually be extended to include other animals [18]. The purpose of this paper is to reconcile this seemingly irreconcilable situation by arguing that it is a “continuum problem” and offering a principled, libertarian compromise that resolves the animal rights debate using the non-aggression principle (NAP) and private property rights [3].