Customer Reviews

The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction

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

 

 

I am in Christian ministry and where I work, a fellow co-worker gave me this book to read over the weekend. I have been a reader of Budziszewski starting with "How To Stay Christian in College." I have read several of "Theophilus's" dialogues at Boundless.org as well as the other books he has on Natural Law. That would be "Written on the Heart", "The Revenge of Conscience", and "What You Can't Not Know."

If you offered me those three books vs. this one now, I would prefer to have this one. It's that good.

Throughout this book the reader will constantly be saying "Why didn't I think of that?" and any objection you have or didn't have Budziszewski sees coming and addresses. I regularly debate on these issues and found myself using his arguments immediately. He argues with you saying "I can't believe I didn't see that earlier." He deals with homosexual marriage quite easily and the chapter especially on capital punishment is excellent.

This is a book no thinker on Natural Law can afford to not know. Natural Law consists of moral truths you can't not know. If you want to be influential in thinking on Natural Law, this is a book you can't not know.

With the current renascence of interest in natural law among students of politics and law, this collection of ten essays and an afterword in defense of the concept by J. Budziszewski (Univ. of Texas) will be of interest to a diverse readership. The book consists of previously published essays and lectures that provide a useful introduction to the importance of natural law. The book is divided into a section of essays on the "foundational principles of good and evil" (xii.) and a section devoted to explicating the implications of natural law for politics. The first half offers engaging analyzes of natural law as the embodiment of truth about the constitution of the human person, philosophical reality, and revelation. The second half confronts the relationship between natural law and several contemporary issues, including capital punishment and the limits of liberalism. Budziszewski writes in an accessible style that encourages the reader to ponder the significance of natural law for the modern world, while arguing that the concept is "embedded into the structure of creation" (p. 199).

Another great book by Budziszewski! He has a real gift to clearly expalin the deep and significant truths of life. I wish he had been my logic professor in college.

J. Budziszewski has written a book that has both those with little formal recognition of natural law (we all have an internal recognition) and those who are natural law veterans in mind. The book is a collection of essays dealing with the recognition of natural law, the impossibility of a successful secular natural law theory, the composition of the human person, Liberalism and various other topics.

Unquestionably, the highlight of the book comes in Budziszewski's essay, "Accept No Limitations: Naturalism vs. Natural Law." Budziszewski does not sit idly by and let secularist get away with saying ridiculous things such as "logic is a brute fact" that does not need justification or that morality or intentionality is an "emergent" quality as though this justifies sneaking them into discourse without providing an adequate metaphysical grounding. This chapter also includes a brief, but sufficient critique of evolutionary psychology and ethics, as well as a deconstruction of utilitarianism and desire utilitarianism (although he doesn't refer to it as such). This exceptional chapter ends with a firm rebuttal of the attempted secular natural law theory of Larry Arnhart.

The final chapter was also very engaging. The focus was on Liberalism and the strange paradox within Liberalism where a false pluralism of religious faith actually serves to undermine religious faith completely. Budziszewski shows through internal critique how the entire project suffers from gross misunderstandings of the very religions it seeks to support through pluralistic ideals. It also shows that Liberalism actually only presents a thin veneer of actual pluralism when in fact its aims are to promote its own "illiberal Liberal religion." I'll let you read the chapter for an explanation of what this means, but it's highly engaging.

This book excels because it helps you to discover things that you already knew, but weren't aware that you knew. You will often come to points of realization where you will think, "That makes sense...it's as if I knew that already, but never knew that I knew it." Budziszewski excels at making the reader aware of those aspects of natural law that all people can't not know. Overall, I strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in better understanding our world, ethics, politics, morality and a whole host of other interesting topics. This book is highly recommended.

This is a good contribution to natural law thinking that has permeated much of Western ethical thinking. Budziszewski writes clearly and concisely moving deftly from point to point in his various arguments throughout the book. The only big flaw I've found is that the author could have defended some of his points better, especially in the first half of the book where he discusses more of the philosophical foundations of natural law theory. For example, the author states that one aspect of the natural law theory is that everyone really deep down knows that God exists and that they are morally responsible before Him. This is a big claim and while Budziszewski gives some evidence for it by quoting atheists who seem to have a willful animus towards God, I don't know if he had completely proven his point. One thing that is tough for the natural law theory at its base is the claim that all people really know they law although they many times suppress that knowledge lying to themselves and others about it. In our culture, nothing is denied as much as this belief and Budziszewski should have done more to argue for it, as C.S. Lewis masterfully did in his The Abolition of Man. I've heard though that the author has another book that deals with this issue more exclusively although this book, What We Can't Not Know, is sadly out of print and too expensive.

The above considerations prevent this book from getting five stars but that being said, it was a pretty enjoyable read. The chapters on Naturalism vs. the Natural Law, life issues, capital punishment, the Constitution and the Illiberal Liberal Religion were great. Budziszewski is great at analyzing the arguments of the other side and arguing for a natural law perspective. He dismantles secular reasoning concerning life issues such as euthanasia and abortion, showing that utilitarian approaches are severely lacking in arriving at conclusions that square with what we `can't not know.' He takes a balanced view of the Constitution that realizes that it is a document produced by fallible men who were sometimes wrong, while upholding the traditional natural law beliefs that undergird the Constitution. John Rawls and the Supreme Court in its Casey decision get a thrashing for making the appearance of supporting a neutral perspective that is free of all judgment while in fact they are sneaking in their own views on these matters. For example, being `pro-choice' is not a neutral position on abortion although it is often made to appear that way. After all, what is more neutral than allowing individuals to make their own decisions about such personal matters? In truth though being `pro-choice' is basically asserting that the unborn are not people deserving protection under the law against unjustified killing as are other people outside the womb. Neutrality is not achieved here as with other `social' issues plaguing us today, and if we are honest such `neutrality' is neither possible nor desirable.

In sum, I think this is a great book on the political side of things though it could have been better on the philosophical side.

I'm an academic type and I've heard of natural law all my life, but I don't really know what it is. The author of this book drops clues along the way but he assumes you know and he never provides a basic explanation or description. I read the book for a discussion group and I can't say that I enjoyed it. If you are patient, however, you will find that the author does have some interesting things to say about the contemporary world. He doesn't dwell on specific political events but rather on the philosophical and moral implications of some current beliefs and practices. The book is not polemical but the author does not hide the fact that he stands a little to the right of center.