Customer Reviews

Common Truths: New Perspectives on Natural Law (Goodrich Lecture Series)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What struck me is that this book analyzes natural law within a legal context: many of the contributing authors are attorneys as well as philosopher. This is particularly helpful to our nation today, as I think more citizens will have to reassess the role of the judiciary these days.

For the latter half of the 20th century, worries over "judicial acitivism" and judges' making decisions that should be made by legislatures have been the domain of conservatives, with Roe v. Wade probably being the chief example. But now liberals have said similar things about the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision. It is high time for intelligent discussion, and this book is a solid foundation for a dialogue.

By looking at natural law historically, legally, and philosophically, the authors of this book examine how natural law works and various challenges to it. This book is a very good introduction, and I have come away with a greater respect for natural law and its vital role in our nation, and also new questions to pursue (and more books to buy...).

The contributing authors are an impressive team of formidable thinkers, and while most of the writers clearly come from a religious background, the are pretty good about keeping what they say applicable to a secular society (the last two essays tend to be more theological than philosophical, and I thought that hurt their impact).

I think MacIntyre's essay on the role of the ordinary person in natural law is particularly valuable: if the American citizenry cannot execute sound moral judgment, our nation as a constitutional republic is in grave danger. Fuller's essay on Locke's struggles with natural law is an honest and challenging look at natural law's theoretical chinks. Riley's essay on tort law gave excellent lessons on liability, but with lawsuits being as common as they are nowadays, I would have hoped for more practical insights on today's situation, and possible remedies.

On the whole, this book is a good read and a good challenge. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in ethics or concerned about the present condition of the United States.

Common Truths: New Perspectives On Natural Law is a collection consisting of cogent remarks and prescient essays: Are There Moral Truths That Everyone Knows? (Ralph McInerny); Natural Law: The Legacy of Greece and Rome (J. Rufus Fears); Aquinas, Natural Law, and the Challenges of Diversity (John Jenkins); John Locke's Reflections on Natural Law and the Character of the Modern World (Timothy Fuller); Theories of Natural Law in the Culture of Advanced Modernity (Alasdair MacIntyre); What Dignity Means (Virginia Black); Natural Law and Positive Law (Robert P. George); Natural Rights and the Limited of Constitutional Law (Russell Hittinger); Natural Law and Sexual Ethics (Janet E. Smith); Contract Law and Natural Law (Edward J. Murphy); Tort Law and Natural Law (William N. Riley); Criminal Law and Natural Law (Ian A.T. McLean); and Natural Law in the Twenty-First Century (Charles E. Rice). Common Truths is scholarly, intellectually stimulating reading for anyone wanting to better understand and appreciate the permanent norms of human action and their relationships to a moral and political life.

Edward McLean brings together leading scholars in this text to exposit the place of the natural law in government, society, and morality. The following are overviews of selected essays from the book:

1. John Locke's Reflections on Natural Law and the Character of the Modern World (Timothy Fuller)
Timothy Fuller, Dean of Colorado College (Ph.D., John Hopkins University) explores Locke's Essays on the Law of Nature, which has been published for the first time by Clarendon Press in 1954 and by Cornell University Press in 1990. Locke's Essays offer the reader for the first time an overview of Locke's "Law of Nature," a concept that frequently comes up in his Second Treatise and other works. Those who have conventionally excoriated Locke as a secularist liberal who rejected the Christian foundations of culture and society may be surprised by this read, which paints a portrait of a thinker whose views on the natural law are in many ways in keeping with the Christian tradition. This is important reading for anyone examining Locke's Second Treatise, which sets forth Locke's view of the basis of government, but which does not clearly define the "Law of Nature" foundational to his view.
Fuller writes of a Lockean vision for natural law that implies not only individual rights, but a system of duties and responsibilities in which rights are grounded. Locke "affirms the natural law as the means to making human individuality manageable and fruitful. Practical virtue is reconciling our desires with our duties. Our freedom demands acknowledgement of our dependency. Freedom and responsible conduct are complementary" (p. 88). Thus, for Locke, the natural law is not about more than just protecting the rights of every individual in an atomistic society; it is about duty, obligation, and virtue, as well; Locke's rights are bound up in a system that implies responsibilities. "In Locke's Second Treatise of Government, his work on natural law is reformulated as the argument in defense of property and productiveness as the keys to human improvement. These things, far from being signs of secularism, are actually evidences for Locke of our cooperation with the providential design for human beings to fulfill themselves through the right use of their reason" (p. 88).
Some would find such statements hard to digest because of the many elements of the Second Treatise that emphasize self-interest and individualism as the basis for political society. Yet I would contend that those who adopt this view of Locke have failed to grasp him fully. Even in his treatment of private property, Locke describes a system where rights are bound up with obligations in a way that looks to the common good of the community. In Locke's framework, for example, one has a right to acquire only what he can consume; to do otherwise would be to invade one's neighbor's share. The law of nature obliges each individual to acquire only what his use calls for and no more.

2. What Dignity Means (Virginia Black)
Virginia Black, associate professor of philosophy at Pace University, sets out to define dignity, which she considers to be central to the natural law. She begins by distinguishing true dignity from false dignity, which is based on an attitude of one-upmanship and manifests itself in "making sure your Rolex is showing on your wrist" and "substituting what money will buy for developing one's character" (p. 122). After discussing several other definitions of dignity, Black goes on to discuss the inherent human dignity that all people hold unconditionally and that hence never changes. In addition to inherent dignity, which must be imputed to all persons as equals, Black discusses what she calls "reflexive dignity," which can be lost when people fail to show dignity towards other people. Thus, reflexive dignity is conditioned on honoring the dignity of others. Holding on the fundamental place of dignity in the teachings of Moses and of Jesus in his Sermon of the Mount, Black concludes that "the choice is clear: either we reach for spirituality and hence conduct ourselves as if reflexive dignity mattered, or we do not care to reach for spirituality and hence our consciousness makes itself indifferent to the choice" (p. 148).

3. Natural Law and Sexual Ethics (Janet Smith)

a) The Argument
University of Dallas associate professor of philosophy Janet Smith makes the case that the use of artificial contraception counters nature and thus contradicts the natural law. She provides forceful rhetorical arguments, scientific and social evidence, as well as anecdotal accounts to demonstrate the moral wrong of contraception and to highlight the health consequences that many women experience from using certain forms of contraception.
Dr. Smith's natural law argument is simple and to the point: "Since sexual intercourse has a twofold natural purpose that must be respected--the purpose of bringing forth new lives and the purpose of uniting men and women together--whoever participates in sexual activity must do so in a way that protects these natural goods of sexual intercourse" (p. 205). To do otherwise would be to frustrate nature.
Dr. Smith points out that "Natural law ethics acknowledges that living in accord with reality and nature limits our choices and our actions" (p. 214). We cannot choose to have sexual intercourse during periods in which the female is fertile and not expect the natural consequence of bearing offspring. We cannot choose to consume large quantities of rich foods and not expect to gain weight. Nature has natural consequences. Nature thus limits our choices to either controlling our appetites and resisting the rich foods, or accepting the consequence of weight gain. To upset this limited menu of options by, for example, choosing to vomit after a meal, is to thwart nature and upset the natural law. In the same way that one who chooses to enjoy consuming the rich foods and avoid the consequences by vomiting after the meal frustrates nature, so too does one who chooses to enjoy the pleasure of sexual activity but avoid the consequences through birth control upsets and frustrates nature.
Professor Smith goes further, by arguing that the very culture behind The Pill associates fertility and pregnancy with an illness that is to be cured, by pointing out the many health hazards that birth control poses to the woman's body, and by arguing that the "barriers" inherent in so many forms of birth control inhibit the intimacy and complete giving of oneself that is designed to be at the center of the sexual act. I will take the liberty of reproducing Smith's words on these issues, since she expresses her points with cogency and clarity:
"The consequences of a contraceptive culture are abundantly clear to us. I think that once one ponders how unnatural contraception is, how out of accord with reality it is, the sexual chaos that characterizes our culture should not surprise us. Why would I say that someone who uses contraception is not respecting the nature and reality of sexual intercourse? First, consider the reality of contraceptives, what they do to a woman's body. The Pill is the most popular form of contraception. Furthermore, when does one generally take a pill? Obviously, when one is ill. But is fertility a sickness? Isn't fertility a healthy, natural condition? Doesn't The Pill treat fertility as though it were an illness, a defect, not a natural good? And think of the side effects of The Pill. The insert that comes with The Pill lists a large number of contraindications or bad side effects. It can cause blood clots, strokes, and infertility in a small percentage of cases--to be sure, but when millions of women are using The Pill, the small percentages can add up to large numbers. Think of the everyday, common side effects. It is common for women who use The Pill to complain of increased irritability, depression, weight gain, and a decreased libido ... In our age, when we have discovered how foolish it is to dump alien chemicals into the environment, why do we think it is sensible for women to put so many alien chemicals into their bodies?" (p. 207-208). Furthermore, The Pill can operate as an abortifacient, since, in addition to stopping ovulation and changing the viscosity of the mucus that either helps or hinders the sperm in getting to the egg, it also renders the uterine wall "hostile to the fertilized ovum--or, in my thinking, to the new human being" (p. 208).
The barrier methods of contraception work against both of the natural purposes of sexual intercourse: the bringing forth new lives as well as the uniting of men and women. "The very name `barrier' is revealing. A couple wishes to make love, but first they must get their barriers in place. They may decide to use a good spermicide to kill whatever sperm may approach the egg. This action is saying, `I want to love you and give myself to you and receive you, but I want to kill any sperm that may penetrate my being.' Is there not a discordant note of hostility in this act that is meant to be a loving act? Does not the rejection of one's beloved's fertility also mean a rejection of one's beloved, as well, at least to some extent?" (p. 209).

b) A Shift of Position Among Christians in the Last Century?
On a closing note, I find it interesting that little over a century ago, all of the mainstream Christian denominations condemned contraception. Today, most of them have either fully welcomed contraception or have had specific churches within the mainline denominations that have done so. This marks a dramatic shift of position in an important social question.

c) The "Natural" Consequences of Sexual Intercourse
If Janet Smith's advice were followed, then couples that engage in sexual intercourse over the course of many years, even if natural family planning is implemented, would eventually have very large families if the couple engages in sexual intercourse with sufficient frequency. Where Professor Smith does not go with her article is what such families are to do with so many children if they simply cannot afford them all. Contraception is one alternative that she unequivocally rejects; yet Smith's suggestion of simply accepting the natural consequences of sex does not offer much solace to those couples that are struggling financially. The periods of abstinence that are required in natural family planning similarly do not offer such couples a solution when they have too little self control to limit their intercourse to the prescribed periods that correspond to when she is not ovulating. One could of course suggest to the partners that they practice the virtue of self-control, but such is easier said than done. The couple will be lured by the quick-fix solution of The Pill or some other contraception that promises all of the fun of sex, but without the consequences.

4. Natural Law in the Twenty-First Century (Charles Rice)
Charles Rice begins with Cardinal Ratzinger's words that the fundamental dogma of the Enlightenment is that "man must overcome the prejudices inherited from tradition; he must have the boldness to free himself from every authority in order to think on his own, using nothing but his own reason" (p. 296). Rice attributes the decline of the family and the acceleration of the "moral collapse of American culture" (p. 301) to the influence of the Enlightenment's principles of secularism, relativism, and individualism. Relativism has been especially harmful: because it denies objective truth, it "reduces law to a function of raw, totalitarian power" (p. 312). Thus, although the twentieth century has produced more declarations of human rights than any century, "it has also produced the greatest violations of those rights" (p. 312). As John Paul II has prompted us to reflect, "freedom without truth inevitably degenerates into a self-centered and nihilistic individualism" (p. 314).
Rice points to the natural law as a coherent alternative to the Enlightenment's teaching. The future "must be built on the recovery of truth, including the natural law, which is an aspect of that truth" (p. 316).

Page 295 of this book begins "the abundant documentation that abortion is murder makes not the slightest dent in the general public's acceptance of at least some abortion." OK, now we know what this book is about, a pro-life argument based on natural law. I thought I was about to read an unbiased study of natural law. My mistake. But there was a silver lining, an excellent summary of the how secularism, relativism, and individualism were key aspects of the Enlightenment. I found that part highly informative, although the author saw those as negative aspects. So it goes.