What We Can't Not Know: A Guide (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Once upon a time, Budziszewski contends, a common moral ground existed so that all cultures could agree on moral absolutes. In contemporary society, however, such mutual ground has given way to shifting moral sands and new "situational" ethics. According to Budziszewski, an associate professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, none of these new systems offers strong moral foundations. Very simply, he argues, we all have deep inside us a moral regulator-our conscience-that tells us right from wrong. This conscience is part of our human nature, and the law that it writes on our hearts is the natural law of God. Thus, contends Budziszewski, we all know it's wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery or have abortions because our conscience tells us so. No matter how we justify cheating on a spouse, he argues that "we can't not know" the activity is wrong. Budziszewski finds fault with every ethical system but his own because they fail to account for this natural, absolute law written in our hearts. He also egregiously misrepresents certain philosophical positions to make his case. He mistakenly presents utilitarianism, for example, as an ethical system guided by the principle of pleasure instead of emphasizing utilitarianism's focus on the greatest good for the greatest number. Despite his tendency to make straw men out of the systems he opposes, Budziszewski passionately and polemically challenges what he sees as the moral shortcomings of contemporary society.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

According to the natural law, a concept Christianity adopted and modified from Greek and Roman philosophy, knowledge of God's existence and of fundamental moral principles constitutes humanity's universal common sense. It isn't innate, however, but must be inculcated through traditional moral systems, such as the Tao, the dharma, and the Ten Commandments. Budziszewski invokes the last as best known to most of his potential readers and cites Judaic and Christian scripture, yet this is no religious tract but a philosophical exposition and a disputation on current moral attitudes and issues, especially abortion. Framing the entire presentation in terms of a lost world of moral consensus, Budziszewski says the natural law grounds a rational worldview that has been discredited by sin and guilt, and displaced by worldviews grounded in sensation (he is particularly cogent on the varieties of modern atheistic or agnostic feelings). But the natural law weltanschauung could be reestablished, and Budziszewski concludes his superb "guide" with broad advice on how to do so (for one thing, "we must repent abortion"). Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 264 pages
• Publisher: Spence Publishing Company (March 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 189062649X
• ISBN-13: 978-1890626495
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (17 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #526,597 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

102 of 109 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars moral philosophy made accessible to us regular people, May 14, 2003

By A Customer

Ever hear a moral position advanced at a cocktail party or on the TV, and thought, "I know there's something wrong with that.... but I just can't quite figure out exactly what?"
This book may help.

J. Budziszewski mixes systematic moral philosophy from a natural-law point of view with specific arguments on the life/death issues of our times (abortion, euthanasia) and on the state's interest in preserving privileges of marriage to one-man-and-one-woman couples. At times the effect is a little frustrating -- as a reader I sometimes found myself longing for the "pure" natural-law position-paper unencumbered by specific examples. However, it is clear from the book that the integrity of the author demands that he address these specific, most consequential moral issues of contemporary U.S. culture, as examples and instances of the general argument.

Most useful to me was the "conversational" chapter near the center of the book, in which Budziszewski answers various objections to Natural Law. One suspects this "conversation" is very like exchanges he has with his students daily. His ability to point out the flaws in various presentations of moral relativism was particularly satisfying.

Budziszewski himself says this book is not intended to convince the opponent or the skeptic, but rather to strengthen the "common sense" and natural conscience-awareness of the already convinced, and those who wannabe convinced. If you fall into the latter two groups, this book is worth a read.

52 of 56 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Pure gold., February 13, 2006

By	David Marshall (Seattle area) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: What We Can't Not Know: A Guide (Paperback)

I have read hundreds of books on religion, morality, and philosophy, but Budziszewski has taught me much that I did not know, or at least realize. C. S. Lewis' Abolition of Man is wise warning to an age in which we tinker with the formula for man: but Dr. B goes beyond Lewis. His work is like the anti-dote to a deadly pandemic.

In my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man, I asked, "Where did Marx go wrong?" I pointed out that Marxists created a three-fold hierarchy of moral values for "the classes, the masses, and the enlightened." They criticized capitalists for oppressing the poor, nagged ordinary people to work hard, don't spit, and take thought for comrades, and justified their own actions by a loose "end-justifies the means" code. The existence of these three systems side by side I found not only hypocritical, but ironic, since Marx himself said communism "abolishes" all morality. But I did not have an explanation for the phenomena, beyond noting that moral law seems hard to abolish.

Budziszewski does not say much about Marxism, but he does explain this, and similar, behavior. He argues that "deep conscience" exists in everyone, and that ultimate values -- neatly summarized by the Ten Commandments -- are indestructable. His writing is lucid and brilliantly (and perhaps deceptively) simple. Even though this book is chock-full of interesting ideas, it is easy to read.

I found two main weaknesses, one negative, the other positive. The negative weakness is that Dr. B's case would be not only easier to digest, but also stronger if he referred to non-Western cultures more. (Having lived many years in and studied several Asian cultures, examples that confirm his argument spring to mind.) The positive weakness is that Dr. B argues in too much the Ivan Karamazov fashion -- cherry-picking newspaper clippings of sordid acts, and holding them up to our noses as if they were "where the culture is going." His arguments about sexual promiscuity and abortion suffer less from this problem. And some of the stuff he dredges up is truly frightening.

One star reviews below may perhaps be explained by the fact that Budziszewski does not do what I just did -- critique an error in another culture -- but attacks the "culture of death" in the West. The reaction often shows more emotion than careful thought. Consider:

(1) "B gathers up all his personal prejudices and political opinions and declares them 'natural law.'" Not really. In fact, "B" focuses on the Ten Commandments, which was in existence well before any modern political party, and has close parallels in (for example) the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. (Including bans against killing babies in the womb.)

(2) "B's conversion to Catholicism demands that he opposes birth control and abortion." In fact he opposed abortion long before becoming a Catholic. Indeed, he joined the Catholic church the same year this book was published.

(3) The book "might be impressive for those who mistake religious superstition for reason." If the critic means Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kepler, and Lewis would love it, I think so, too.

(4) Two critics accuse Dr. B of "preaching to the choir." "Why write a book for people who are already convinced they are in the moral right because the Bible sys so?" As he makes clear, the Bible says NO ONE is in the moral right, including the choir. We can all benefit from Dr. B's work of making the logic of sin and rationalization clearer, because these are forces that work on everyone. Besides which, members of the choir live in a world where these forces go largely unchecked, and in which we are called to be "salt and light." Anyone, including skeptics, may benefit by thinking more clearly about right and wrong.

(5) Another complaint is about a "substantial section about ID" which the reviewer found "distant from a philosopher's roots" and "extreme." I have my doubts about ID. But I only found one long paragraph on the subject, the relevance of which was clear. Besides, I have recently read books by philosophers who made evolution a centerpiece of their skeptical philopophies -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(6) One person is mightily distressed that Dr. B defines an agnostic as someone who "claims ignorance about God." He calls these "loaded words" that indicate a "weak and desperate intellect." But "a" means "not," and "gnostic" means "knowing" -- is "ignorant" so loaded a synonym for "not knowing?" In fact Thomas Huxley, who invented the term "agnostic," used the word "ignorant" himself to explain his view. But perhaps the reviewer was ig -- I mean, did not know that.

(7) Further: "An agnostic's contention that it is impossible to know whether there is a God is the most rock solidly honest viewpoint that any person can take." Really? This claim implies that the agnostic can somehow KNOW that God cannot possibly reveal Himself to man. How can anyone possibly know that? It seems to me simple confession of ignorance is far more reasonable.

(8) Finally, "Every sensible Christian is convinced they can't know they're right, therein lies faith." This reader is confused about how Christians understand faith. See the anthology in "Faith and Reason" on my web page, christthetao.com, for quotes by leading Christian thinkers down through the centuries.

It is not surprisingly that some nails complain when Dr. Bud hits them resoundingly on the head! But as the Proverbs say, "faithful are the wounds of a friend." Read this thoughtful, essential book, and see if people (including ourselves) act like that. Then pass it on to a friend.

BTW: For more on Dr. B's claim that God is known universally, see the chapter on "The Non-History of God" in my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man.

46 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Best introduction to Natural Law that I've seen, November 8, 2004

By	Craig K. Galer (Michigan) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Over the last few years, I've been looking for a good book on Natural Law, and Budziszewski has written three of them (see also his 'Written On the Heart' and 'The Revenge of Conscience'); 'What We Can't Not Know' is the best, most complete, popular-level treatment I've seen.

Budziszewski emphasizes the Natural Law as 'built into' (or, more properly, 'designed into') the universe, and 'built into' our own human nature (ie, 'written on our hearts'). As such, the force of Natural Law doesn't depend on whether or not one 'accepts' it (this reminds me of Churchill's famous quip when told that Lady Astor had "accepted the universe" - "she'd better"). Transgressing the Natural Law has inevitable consequences, some of them quite unexpected, or with long time lags.

Budziszewski states at the beginning that he is writing for a Christian audience, which is fine, as far as it goes, but it leaves me waiting for his next(?) book, in which he states his case to those "outside the household of faith". It seems to me that Natural Law ideas could be very helpful for public discourse, at least insofar as they can show that Judeo-Christian moral reasoning doesn't depend solely on matters of faith or revelation.