Aquinas's Theory of Natural Law: An Analytic Reconstruction [Paperback]

Anthony J. Lisska (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 19, 1998 | ISBN-10: 0198269676 | ISBN-13: 978-0198269670

This new critique of Aquinas's theory of natural law presents an incisive, new analysis of the central themes and relevant texts in the Summa Theologiae which became the classical canon for natural law. Professor Lisska discusses Aquinas's view of ethical naturalism within the context of the contemporary revival and recovery of Aristotelian ethics, arguing that Aquinas is fundamentally Aristotelian in the foundations of his moral theory. The book looks at the historical development of natural law themes in the twentieth century, and in particular demonstrates the important connections between Aquinas and contemporary legal philosophers. The book should be of considerable interest to scholars of jurisprudence as well as philosophers.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Philosophical controversies over natural law have immediate relevance to conflicts of everyday life ... not the least valuable feature of Anthony J. Lisska's lively and illuminating discussion is his catalogue of positions taken by participants in those controversies ... there are a number of stimulating discussions that deserve independent treatment, notably that of human rights. Lisska's elegant prose-style and clarity of exposition combine to make his book a pleasure to read. It deserves a wider audience than do most academic books."--Alasdair MacIntyre, Duke University, International Philosophical Quarterly Vol. XXXVII, No. 1 Issue No. 145 (March 1997)

About the Author

Anthony J. Lisska is at Denison University, Ohio.

Product Details

• Paperback: 336 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (February 19, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0198269676
• ISBN-13: 978-0198269670
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.3 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #440,132 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars beg to disagree, February 9, 2003

By 

Lance B. Richey "[e-mail]" (Milwaukee, WI USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Aquinas's Theory of Natural Law: An Analytic Reconstruction (Paperback)

I really feel obliged to disagree with the panning review given above. I am a professional philosopher myself, and while I ultimately would reject natural law theory as a basis for ethics, for many of the problems with it which Lisska identifies and vainly struggles to overcome in his book, I was very impressed by the book itself. I think Lisska situates contemporary natural theory within the various debates over law and ethics over the last century, identifies the key "metaphysical" problem with the theory, namely, its reliance upon the concept of all humans sharing a common nature or essence, and puts forward a reasonable and hardly extravagent functional alternative to Aristotelian essences as a possible basis for furhter natural law theorizing.

No, I was not ulimtatley convinced by the book, but I was very impressed with its clarity and it sophistication. Unlike the other review, this is one of the few books on Aquinas which I would not part with. Someone with an interest in what makes Aquinas a perenially interesting philosopher should buy the other reviewer's copy--I already own one or I would!

8 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Unacceptable on Every Level, April 5, 2002

By 

D. S. Heersink "D. Stephen Heersink" (San Francisco) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Aquinas's Theory of Natural Law: An Analytic Reconstruction (Paperback)

The first, fifty-five pages are given over to ubiquitous promises the author intends to make good in the last two-hundred-and-fifty pages, and doesn't. These promises allude to precursors of natural law in its many variegated forms, some of which are not really "natural law" principles at all. Most of the discussion is about how some contemporary Thomists and neo-Thomists have approached the issue, but the reader cannot follow the subtle nuances of this discussion without knowing the meaning of natural law at the outset. The exposition of a reconsidered natural law follows this meandering, often uninteresting, introduction. In another confusion, the author discusses the impact of Moore's naturalistic fallacy on natural law before he describes what Aquinas' "natural law" is. So, over a hundred pages are heuristically inverted, leaving the reader to ponder future promises and anticipate an argument before he knows even the meanings of the terms of the argument drawn. If I did not already possess knowledge of Aquinas' natural law theory, these pages would have been meaningless; as it is, I found the points they may have been trying to make arcane, discursive, and near solipsistic.

Lisska insists upon ten fundamental principles necessary to serve the function of adopting Aquinas' natural law theory. Four of these principles require we accept "essences," a medieval concept wholly foreign in modern philosophy. A fifth principle requires "truth" as a correspondence theory between mind and things (see, Searle, "Construction of Social Reality" for why this is no longer so). The other principles insist that (6) metaphysics of morals is possible, (7) that reason takes precedence over the affective will, &c. In other words, one has to adopt the medieval, which is to say the Aristotlean, metaphysical schema in order for a "modern reconstruction" of Aquinas' natural law to succeed. Lisska writes, "In Aquinas's ontology, the dispositional paradigm holds only for temporal essences" (87), and again, "Divine commands must be in accord with the rational demands of the eternal law" (ibid), but it is precisely those very preconditions that makes Aquinas' natural law inimical to contemporary philosophy in the first place. I don't "see" what Lisska means by an "analytical reconstruction." His writing is the most circumlocutious writing on Thomistic natural law as one can find; it would be better to assimilate it from the source: "Summa Theologica," I-II, q. 90-97, esp. q. 94.

Finally, by page 107, we attain Lisska's definition of the natural law: "Because the end itself determines the well-functioning of the human person. The disposition has, as a part of its very nature, a tendency towards a specific end. This end, when realized, contributes to the well-being of the individual. This is the crux of natural law theory. Nature has `determined', as it were, the ends which lead to the well-being of the individuals of the natural kind." From this nexus, the rest is downhill, as Lisska then evaluates how different scholastic and neo-scholastic philosophers of this past century have adapted this explication into their working-definitions. It's a tremendous bore, not at all enlightening, and of relative useless speculation on its applicability today. If it weren't for Robert George's excellent work in the field, I would have tossed natural law theory out the window. The book is that bad.

I routinely buy from Oxford University Press based on their unparalleled quality of authors and editors. How this travesty passed its high editorial standards is deeply puzzling. I have highlighted only some of my disappointments with this book, but overall it is one of the worst books I've read in the field of theology, philosophy, or anthropology. My copy is for sale.