Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality (Clarendon Paperbacks) [Paperback]

Robert P. George (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 25, 1995 | ISBN-10: 0198260245 | ISBN-13: 978-0198260240

Contemporary liberal thinkers commonly suppose that there is something in principle unjust about the legal prohibition of putatively victimless crimes. Here Robert P. George defends the traditional justification of morals legislation against criticisms advanced by leading liberal theorists. He argues that such legislation can play a legitimate role in maintaining a moral environment conducive to virtue and inhospitable to at least some forms of vice. Among the liberal critics of morals legislation whose views George considers are Ronald Dworkin, Jeremy Waldron, David A.J. Richards, and Joseph Raz. He also considers the influential modern justification for morals legislation offered by Patrick Devlin as an alternative to the traditional approach. George closes with a sketch of a "pluralistic perfectionist" theory of civil liberties and public morality, showing that it is fully compatible with a defense of morals legislation. Making Men Moral will interest legal scholars and political theorists as well as theologians and philosophers focusing on questions of social justice and political morality.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"George is an accomplished controversialist; his arguments are always clear, sophisticated, and highly interesting. Making Men Moral deserves the attention of moral, political, and legal theorists."--Choice

"Making Men Moral is a strong defense of morals laws against arguments critical of traditional jurisprudence by contemporary liberal legal scholars."--Modern Age

"...contains much erudition and wisdom worthy of study and reflection."--Modern Age

"There is much to praise in George's book."--Ethics

"This book is clear, incisive, and well argued. I highly recommend it."The Review of Metaphysics

About the Author

Robert P. George is at Princeton University.

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (May 25, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0198260245
• ISBN-13: 978-0198260240
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #707,251 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

67 of 75 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A defense of perfectionism, December 9, 2000

By 

M. Golkar (New York City) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality (Clarendon Paperbacks) (Paperback)

This book is a strong response to the widely held view that morality as such cannot be enforced by the law. According to Prof. George, society may legitimately seek to "make men moral" as long as the moral sentiment expressed is legitimate. The last qualification is important, because it does set a limit on how far the law may go in interfering with personal autonomy. Therefore, we can say that it is premised on a natural law foundation, which is foreign to most people today. Most of the arguments are made in the course of criticizing the opposing views of some heavyweight philosophers like Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls, and Joseph Raz. Especially good is a chapter on the famous debate between H.L.A. Hart and Patrick Devlin. Though George's position is closer to that of Devlin, he does a good job explaining how Devlin's views are in many ways deficient and incompatible with a free society. This is a fine book no matter what your political views, though it does help to have a background in political and moral philosophy to fully grasp the arguments.

1 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars In the Same League as A White Suprematist, January 2, 2012

By 

Peter P. Fuchs (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality (Clarendon Paperbacks) (Paperback)

It is dawning on Robert George that he and his friends will be treated as society does white suprematists today. Not because he believes that straight marriage is a better option for him and those he would counsel. Rather, because he has bought and propagandized for a scam-version of modern Thomism with vaguely theocratic intentions, by which he hoped to restrict the civil rights of those he does not agree with. He does not get it. No one asks him or his friends or family to live any way they do not wish to. But he has made a career trying to smuggle in his authoritarian intent as if it were self-evident reason. This blog post shows that not only is he mad he will not be able to do it. He is aghast, as I am sure Oxford University will be, that they will be taken as the authors and publishers of fantastically hateful and cussed attempts at violence against other people's civil right, in the future. Quite the come down from an illustrious past. Let them and their descendants not look for forgiveness and understanding. There will be none. They will only get the hard judgment of history. To wit:

""What will happen to Catholics and others . . . ?"

One of my superstar former students, writing about his experience at one of our nation's premier law schools, sent me a note after reading my MOJ post on marriage, religious liberty, and the "grand bargain." Here is the text, with names removed to protect the innocent:

I had a first-hand experience with this reality in law school. One of my constitutional law professors taught the section of our course relating to same-sex marriage under the "inevitability" banner. I met with him in office hours later to talk to him about something else, but I brought up a question that I have been wrestling with: if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)? I posed the question to him because I was curious to hear his response, since he is generally a kind and reasonable person who seemed open to other viewpoints.

His response was very disappointing, and it shook my confidence in him. He responded to me by saying something along the lines of: "Well, they [Catholics and others] will either have to change their views or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated. They were excluded from the judiciary entirely for decades because of the South's views on race."

He evinced no sympathy for the traditional marriage position or those who hold it. They were to be relegated to the ash heap of history. [ It is amazing that George's star student has so little respect for the professional bind he has put his professor in. This professor was a constitutional law professor, and in being asked a serious question by his student, was not there to dispense personal commiseration or advice, but to give an answer. The so-called start student does not like that the professor kept to his professional standards and not to some personal attempt at nice-nice. So much for the realism of this start student] He said all of this to me knowing full well (because I had foolishly just told him) that I was a Catholic who opposed SSM.

Is anyone prepared to say that the view expressed by the professor is merely a fringe opinion in the contemporary academy? Is anyone prepared to say that it is the view of only a small minority, or a minority at all, in what University of Virginia sociologist Jonathan Haidt calls the liberal tribal-moral community of contemporary academia? [Once again the paranoid idea that there is some sinister grouping of "liberals" who are guiding this tectonic change. A very substandard view purely from an intellectual point of view] Would anyone deny that there is a significant element in the elite sector of the culture---an element with real power over the lives and careers of people like my former student---that wishes to penalize or discriminate against those who refuse in conscience to yield to the liberal orthodoxy on issues of sex and marriage? [Apparently Robert George is against a neutral standard of decent treatment of all regardless of their state in life. He wants to be able to be hateful and get away with it. Not the American way.] Consider the professors own words. He made no effort to hide his goals and intentions. On the contrary, he made it abundantly clear that Catholics and others who persist in their dissent [ it is a civil society Mr. George, not a Church from which one could "dissent" The choice of words here is revelatory of George's underlying view of society some blief systemt must rule in a religious way. Pathetic.] are to be treated the way we treat white supremacists. They are to be stigmatized, subjected to discrimination, and denied the right to hold certain offices.

And this professor, as my student observed, is a "generally a kind and reasonable person who seems open to other viewpoints." [George cannot accept that with all his religious prattle people actually take HIM and not this professor as a machinating and nasty character. Hell, Robert, history calling!] What are we to expect, then, from those who are even less "open to other viewpoints"?

Posted by Robert George on January 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM Permalink TrackBack (0)"

8 of 117 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Over-rated, April 25, 2006

By 

Max Edison "Max Edison" (Denver) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality (Clarendon Paperbacks) (Paperback)

Mr. George spends a great deal of time and effort justifying meanness, cruelty, and bone-headed, stupifying insanity. He fears the different among us, those who do not conform to his tired, old-hat definitions of what is good and moral. Hatred is not a traditional value, Mr. George.