The “Salvation Plank” Mental Experiment in the History of Philosophy and Jurisprudence: Carneades, Pufendorf, et al
EDN: GVICRY
Abstract
Through multi-scale mental experiments in philosophy and legal science, existential and legal conflicts are constructed in their extreme and simultaneously figurative form. The study of the thought experiment known as the Pufendorf plank of salvation, conducted in the context of microhistory and based on the methodology of hermeneutics and historical criticism, showed that it originated in the creativity of Carneades, an orator and supporter of the pyrrhonist trend of Greek philosophy of the 2nd century BC. The decisive factor in the unofficial recognition of the German lawyer of the XVII century Samuel Pufendorf authorship presumably was the public and academic success of his theory in general and the well-balanced, taking into account the circumstances of the time, construction of the institution of excused necessity in particular. The allegory of the plank of salvation was used by speculators of different epochs and schools, who adjusted its fabula in their own mode and interpreted its semantic potential in different ways. Jurisprudence is interested in the contours and mechanisms of objectified and formalized regulation of socially relevant human activity, while philosophy is interested in the measure of combinability of its internal and external determinants. Both lines converge at the point of analyzing borderline situations, one of the varieties of which is the infliction of harm in a state of extreme necessity. Therefore, the hypothetical model of the salvation plank is actualized at the points of intersection of philosophical and theoretical-legal forms of rational reflection.
About the Author
G. Ch. Sinchenko
Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Georgiy Ch. Sinchenko, Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Political Science, Honored Worker of Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Science (Philosophy), Professor
Omsk
References
1. Berman, H. J. (1985) Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England. 672 p.
2. Grotius, H. (1994) The Law of War and Peace.
3. Dworkin, R. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously. Harward University Press. 392 p. EDN: QVXKZT
4. Kant, I. (1965) The Metaphysics of Morals.
5. Diogenes Laërtius (1986) Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers.
6. Kozhevina, M. A., Yashuk, T. F. (2023) The Evolution of the Science of the History of Law and States of Russia (XVIII–XX centuries). (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/1915630
7. Kuznetsov, E. V. (1989) Philosophy of Law in Russia. (In Russ.).
8. Lactantius (2007) The Divine Institutes.
9. Levi, E. H. (2013) An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press. 128 p.
10. Locke, J. (2002) Essays on the Law of Nature: the Latin Text with a Translation, Introduction and Notes, Together with Transcripts of Locke’s Shorthand in his Journal for 1676. Claredon Press. 304 p.
11. Lotman, Yu. M. (1992) Symbol in the System of Culture. (In Russ.)
12. Martishina, N. I. (2013) Mental Experiment in the Philosophy of law. Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. No. 3. Pp. 55–59. (In Russ.). EDN: RCOLJV
13. Mekhed, G. N. (2017) Mental Experiment in Philosophy and Ethics. Filosofskaya Mysl’. No. 5. Pp. 1–13. (In Russ.). URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=22985. DOI: 10.7256/2409-8728.2017.5.22985
14. Nikulenko, A. V. (2022) Legislative Modernization of Extreme Necessity, Criminal legislation: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (June 3-4, 2022, St. Petersburg. Pp. 201–2011. (In Russ.) EDN: KTRNWQ
15. Pashe-Ozersky, N. N. (1962) Necessary Defense and Extreme Necessity in Soviet Criminal Law. (In Russ.)
16. Pleshakov, A. M., Shkabin, G. S. (2007) “Counteraction of Lives” in Emergency and Criminal Responsibility Problems, State and Law. No. 7. Pp. 64–71. (In Russ.)
17. Plutarch (1961) Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans.
18. Pufendorf, S. On the Duty of Man and Citizen. URL: https://predanie.ru/book/221340-ob-obyazannostyahcheloveka-i-grazhdanina-po-estestvennomu-zakonu/
19. Rozin, N. N. On Extreme Necessity. Criminal-Juridical Research. (In Russ.)
20. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Belknap Press. 624 p. DOI: https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v
21. Sinchenko, G. Ch. (2023) Citation Empire. A Philosophical and Historical Sketch. Part II. The Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Herald of Omsk University. Vol. 28, No. 2. Pp. 14–21 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24147/1812-3996.2023.28(2).14-21
22. Filatov, V. P. (2010) Mental Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. Vol. XXV, No. 3. Pp. 5–15 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.5840/eps201025352
23. Fichte, G. (2014) Foundations of Natural Right.
24. Fuller, L. L. (1949) The Case of Speluncean Explorers. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 62, No. 4. Pp. 616–645.
25. Fuller, L. L. (1969) The Morality of Law. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 263 p.
26. Fuller, L. L. (1969) The Problem of the Grudge Informer // Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Pp. 245–254.
27. Fuller, S. (2018) Post-Truth. Knowledge as a Power Game. Anthem Press. 208 p. DOI: https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctvgd30v
28. Khmelevskaya, S. A. (2011) Collision of Lives as a Philosophy and Law problem, Philosophy of Politics and Law. Collection of Scientific Works. Issue 2. (In Russ.)
29. Khmelevskaya, S. A. (2020) The Problem of the Collision of Lives from the Standpoint of Philosophical Reflection, Living Standards of the Population in the Regions of Russia. Vol. 16, No. 2. Pp. 100–107 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/lsprr/2020.16.2.10
30. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (2020) On Moral Duties (De Officiis).
31. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1966) On the Republic. (In Russ.).
32. Chervyakovsky, A. V. (2025) Thought Experiment in the Works of Modern Western Scientists-Philosophers and Law Theorists. Juridical Techniques. Vol. 19. Pp. 440–442. (In Russ.)
33. Shtoff, V. A. (1966) Modeling and Philosophy.
34. Edmonds, D. (2015) Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong. Princeton University Press. 240 p.
35. D’Amato, A. (2011) On the Connection Between Law and Justice. Faculty Working Papers. Paper 2. URL: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/2
36. Finkelstein, C. O. (2001) Two Men and a Plank, Legal Theory. No. 7. Pp. 279–306.
37. Ghanayim, Kh. (2006) Excused Necessity in Western Legal Philosophy. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. Vol. 19, No. 1. Pp. 31–65.
38. Pufendorf, S. (1672) De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo. Londini Scanorum. Sumtibus Adami Junghans. 1227 p.
39. Thomasius, Ch. (2011) Institutes of Divine Jurisprudence with Selections from Foundations of the Law of Nature and Nations. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. 659 p.
Review
For citations:
Sinchenko G.Ch. The “Salvation Plank” Mental Experiment in the History of Philosophy and Jurisprudence: Carneades, Pufendorf, et al. Theoretical and Applied Law. 2025;(4):25-38. (In Russ.) EDN: GVICRY
Views:
20
Email this article 