Abstract

The article aims at investigating the alternative between unanimity and authority used by Francesco Viola and contemporary Natural Law Theories for explaining the necessity of law in determining the common good. With the help of some classic readings (Kant, Rousseau, Hegel, Burke, Madison, Plato and two biblical apologues), the author discusses the relationship between the people and its authority, and the problematic alternative between unanimity and authority. The author examines some difficulties such as restricted and discriminatory ways of defining the people and then of the bias in determining the common good for all those who are affected by that determination, as well as some possible defects in political representation and in officials’ qualities that make their definition of what is the common good controversial