\u201cContrary to what many influential voices in our culture, politics, and even our institutions of higher education would have you believe, the truth about even the most controversial matters can be objectively known, and cannot be altered by one\u2019s subjective feelings or \u2018lived experiences.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
So says Princeton professor Robert P. George, one of today\u2019s most distinguished conservative thinkers, and he backs up his claim in his new book,\u00a0Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth<\/em><\/a>, a model in the application of natural law.<\/p>\n
That term does not refer to scientific laws. Nor does this use of \u201cnature\u201d refer to mountains, forests, and wildlife. As an approach to moral reasoning, it does not mean emulating behavior we see in nature. (I\u2019ve read arguments claiming that homosexuality is in accord with the natural law based on descriptions of what dogs and chimps sometimes do.)<\/p>\n
Rather, in this context, \u201cnature\u201d refers to something\u2019s essential properties, as in \u201chuman nature\u201d or \u201cby its very nature.\u201d Understanding \u201cthe nature of the job\u201d helps us know how to do that job well. Understanding \u201chuman nature\u201d or \u201cthe nature of society\u201d helps us know how we should live and how society should function. Such knowledge constitutes natural law.<\/p>\n
This way of thinking derives from Aristotle as mediated by Thomas Aquinas, and it is foundational to Western thought. Natural law is the basis of Catholic moral theology, though Protestants too\u2014such as the Anglican Richard Hooker, the Lutheran Samuel von Pufendorf, and the Reformed Hugo Grotius\u2014were also important natural law theorists.<\/p>\n
And yet, natural law thinking does not rest on religion. Though George is a Catholic, his arguments are based on reason, not revelation. Natural law works with concepts such as ends and means (that is, purpose and how we achieve that purpose) and intrinsic and instrumental goods (that is, things that are good in themselves and things that are good because they lead to other good things).<\/p>\n
When I would teach Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Nichomachean Ethics<\/em>, we made a game of it. Name something that would be good to have. \u201cMoney!\u201d Is money good in itself or because it can lead to other good things? \u201cLead to other good things!\u201d Like what? \u201cA new car!\u201d Is a car good in itself or because it can lead to other good things? \u201cOther good things!\u201d Like what? \u201cGoing on vacation!\u201d Is a vacation good in itself or because it can lead to other good things? \u201cOther good things!\u201d Like what? \u201cSpending time with my family.\u201d Is family good in itself or because it leads to other good things? [Pause.] \u201cGood in itself!\u201d<\/p>\n
Making money an intrinsic good, as in pursuing money at the expense of your family, creates moral problems. So does instrumentalizing an intrinsic good, such as using one\u2019s family members to extract their money. In the natural law tradition, human life is considered an intrinsic good. While we may sometimes \u201cuse\u201d people instrumentally\u2014as in doctors to heal our illnesses or carpenters to build our houses\u2014we must respect their lives and their intrinsic value.<\/p>\n
George quotes Kant: \u201cMan, however, is not a thing and hence is not something to be used merely as a means. He must in all his actions always be regarded as an end in himself.\u201d Such regard has consequences for how we treat others. \u201cTherefore,\u201d Kant continues, \u201cI cannot dispose of man in my own person by mutilating, damaging, or killing him.\u201d<\/p>\n
Such a high view of human beings and their innate value is at the heart of all of George\u2019s arguments as he works through today\u2019s moral, political, and legal controversies.<\/p>\n
[Keep reading. . .]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Let me give you some samples, both of my review and of what George does with Natural Law.<\/p>\n
On abortion:<\/p>\n
If we only value human beings according to their development, their characteristics, or what they can do, human equality and human rights become impossible.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the morality of abortion does not depend on speculations about when life begins. Medieval medicine considered the quickening of the child\u2014when the mother can feel the baby\u2019s movement\u2014is the moment of \u201censoulment,\u201d when the fetus acquired an immortal soul (an argument I have heard from modern pro-abortion theologians). But the notion that the body is only a vessel for the soul was a tenet of the Gnostic heresy repudiated by orthodox theology. The notion that a fetus becomes a human only when it attains consciousness, or feels pain, or has brain waves, or can think for itself is simply more dualism. George, who calls such thinking \u201cliberal Gnosticism\u201d and \u201cbody-self dualism,\u201d refutes such views. We are a union of body and soul.<\/p>\n
Human dignity comes from what we are, he says, not the qualities that we have or do not have.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On euthanasia:<\/p>\n
Some arguments for killing the sick are not really euthanasia at all. \u201cEuthanasia is the killing of someone for the benefit of that person. There is also the killing of someone for the benefit of someone else\u2014the caregiver, someone who wants to save money, someone who needs their organs, etc. That<\/em>\u00a0is not euthanasia.\u201d That is ordinary murder.<\/p>\n
But can we kill someone for their benefit? It all comes down to the question, \u201cIs [death] something good or evil for a human being?\u201d Killing someone can only harm them, not benefit them. It isn\u2019t making their life better, but ending their life. This is because \u201clife is intrinsically good for a human being.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He goes on to offer such rigorous, objective, yet morally sensitive thinking on issue after issue, including contentions about law, economics, and politics.\u00a0 To quote myself and George:<\/p>\n
When it comes to political and economic issues, natural law applies another kind of \u201cgood\u201d: the common good. \u201cThe common good of political society is fundamentally an instrumental good,\u201d he says, \u201c and \u2026 this entails moral limits on justified governmental power.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The book\u2019s arguments are clarifying and persuasive, revealing contrary positions to be based on sheer subjectivity.\u00a0 The book also models a way of thinking that can be used to sort through issues that he doesn\u2019t even address, thus teaching the reader how to think\u2013 and argue\u2013in terms of the Natural Law.<\/p>\n
Keep reading!<\/a><\/p>\n
[This is a free post to share with others.]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/305\/2025\/08\/1024px-Robert_P._George_by_Gage_Skidmore-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIs it possible to argue rationally and persuasively about moral and cultural issues?\u00a0 Can you make a case for Christian morality based on objective reason alone?\u00a0 You absolutely can.\u00a0 And a new book<\/a> shows you how.<\/p>\n I review it for Religion & Liberty Online\u00a0<\/em>in a piece entitled\u00a0How Robert George Applies Natural Law to Public Policy<\/a>, with the deck, \u201cThe Princeton professor\u2019s new book offers a fresh look at an old way of understanding everything from pro-life issues to market economics to big vs. small government.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019ll quote from my opening and give you some samples, in the hope that you\u2019ll click the link<\/a> to read the whole review and then click another link<\/a> to buy the book:<\/p>\n