Sacrificing the Individual: The Ethics of Land Seizures in Việt Nam

In recent years, the government’s methods during land seizures—particularly for the Red River Scenic Boulevard and Gia Bình International Airport projects—have left citizens feeling a lack of fairness and compassion. [1] [2] Families in these affected areas are struggling to maintain a sense of safety for their children while facing a system that appears to disregard the homes they have spent a lifetime building. 

This raises several questions: Are the laws on land, zoning, and seizure actually just? Whose side is the law on? Are citizens being too selfish when they ask for compassion in state policies? Where exactly is the line between individual and national interest, and must individuals always make absolute sacrifices for the latter? 

Demands for fairness and compassion are completely legitimate; the law should not be a pure imposition of power that strips citizens of their dignity. Recognizing this allows for a calmer response and opens the door to constructive discussion. 

The arguments of influential philosophers, including Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, Immanuel Kant in the 18th century, and contemporary scholars like Lon Fuller and John Finnis, provide a foundation for this moral perspective.

Thomas Aquinas’ Definition of Law

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)—the Italian philosopher, theologian, and priest who was canonized by the Church in 1323—remains one of history’s most influential scholars, largely for his work in systematizing Latin theological thought. [3] 

In his “Summa Theologiae,” Aquinas provides a concise definition: Law “is nothing other than an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community and promulgated.” [4]

This definition rests on four elements:

• Law must stem from reason rather than arbitrary will or raw power. 
• Law must serve the true common good of the community, not the private interests of a ruling faction. 
• Law must be enacted by a legitimate authority entrusted with the community’s care. 
• Law must be clearly promulgated so that all citizens can comprehend and follow it.

According to Aquinas, a human law is only a true law when it aligns with natural law—those fundamental principles recognizable by human reason. [5] If a rule contradicts reason, undermines the common good, and violates the basic conditions required for a humane life, it ceases to be a true law. At that point, its nature is distorted, potentially devolving into violence disguised as legislation. [6]

This distortion demonstrates that the state cannot behave like God. The state is merely an organization entrusted with the community’s care, and its power is bound by reason and the common good. When land seizure laws and policies are not built upon fairness and dialogue, and when they fail to respect the homes citizens have spent lifetimes building, they easily devolve into a pursuit of political achievements and private gain rather than a service to the true common good.

Human Dignity and the Limits of the State

Relying solely on concepts like “the common good” and “reason” does not fully explain why laws must be just and compassionate, nor does it address why the state is obligated to respect citizen dignity.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), whose work in epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics has shaped modern philosophy, provides a secular foundation perfectly suited for discussing this dignity. [7] 

In “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” he introduces the formula of humanity: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [8] 

Put simply: “People are the goal of development, not merely the means to achieve it.”

Furthermore, Kant asserts that freedom—defined as independence from the constraints of another’s choice, provided it can coexist with the freedom of others under universal law—is the only innate human right. [9] 

As such, the state and its legislation must guarantee this fundamental right. When the state treats citizens as mere “obstacles” to be cleared for land development projects, rather than as dignified individuals whose homes and livelihoods deserve respect, it reduces them to mere means. At this point, the law ceases to protect freedom and instead becomes an instrument of coercion.

Contemporary scholars like John Finnis and Lon Fuller expand upon this relationship between the state, the law, and the individual. In “Natural Law and Natural Rights,” Finnis argues that the primary task of the law is to coordinate human action toward the common good, enabling individuals to pursue basic goods such as life, health, knowledge, friendship, and religion. [10] If the law fails in this coordinative task, it loses its inherent moral nature and its legitimate binding force. Even if a law serving private interests remains technically binding, it is morally bankrupt.

Similarly, in “The Morality of Law,” Lon Fuller identifies eight elements essential to the “internal morality of law”: laws must be general, publicly promulgated, possible to comply with, clear and understandable, free of contradiction, relatively stable, possible to follow, and applied in keeping with their purpose. [11] Fuller argues that failing even one of these elements does not just create a flawed system; it creates something that fails to be a legal system entirely. [12]

Therefore, when the state enforces laws that are arbitrary, unclear, unpublished, or impossible to comply with, it is not exercising law but merely imposing raw power. The moral foundation of law acts as a strict boundary on state authority, proving that the government cannot act with impunity under the guise of legality without first meeting these minimum moral conditions.

The Line Between Individual and National Interest

It is a common argument that individuals must willingly sacrifice for the national interest. However, the true common good is not an abstract concept used to justify stripping citizens of their rights and dignity. Rather, it involves protecting the very conditions required for a humane life—a safe home, a stable family, and a respected household. 

When “the national interest” forces citizens to endure staggering losses without fair treatment, adequate compensation, or basic respect, it actively destroys this common good. Demanding compassionate legislation is not selfish; it is an insistence that the law remain true to its purpose as an ordinance of reason serving the public welfare and upholding human dignity.

Morality cannot be weaponized as a pretext to sacrifice the individual for the collective. True societal progress cannot be built upon the crushed happiness of displaced families. 

In “The Brothers Karamazov,” Fyodor Dostoevsky illustrates this profound philosophical dilemma through Ivan Karamazov’s challenge to his younger brother, Alyosha [13]:

“Tell me yourself; I challenge you—answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the aim of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it is essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—say, that baby beating its breast with its fist—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect under those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”

“No, I wouldn’t consent,” said Alyosha softly.

When a legal system fails to prevent this sacrifice—or worse, when it legitimizes the destruction of the individual for the supposed benefit of the crowd—it breaks from natural law and forfeits its true character as law. 

The philosophers cited here universally reject the absolute sacrifice of the individual to an unreasonable and unfair state apparatus. The law only demands sacrifice when it genuinely serves the common good and is executed with fairness, transparency, and a profound respect for human dignity.

The law must never degenerate into a pure imposition of power by the ruling class. Viewed through the moral frameworks of Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and contemporary legal scholars, the public’s demand for fairness and compassion in land seizure policies is entirely legitimate. 

Rather than framing citizens as enemies or weaponizing the law to uproot their lives, the state must foster open, constructive dialogue. Only when the law operates as a true “ordinance of reason for the common good” will it earn its authority and deliver genuine security and stability to all citizens.

---

Tèo wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on October 27, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine translated it into English.