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

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.

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.

My first "foray" into natural law proper, with J.B. as my guide. Almost done with my first reading; plenty "food for thought", and I've been filling margins along the way... I read critically, to both understand a point of view and to debate it, as well. I feel better informed on the matter, and would recommend (HAVE recommended) to others.I find I am in sympathy with the premise of natural law as an inhering endowment of our Maker, but I do not share Budzi's confidence in its virtuous implementation. In Christ's summary of the Mosaic Law, He grounds its effective keeping in its objective outcome: 36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22; and, 25(A) lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” Luke 10. Lacking this critical virtue of the will, one cannot grant that the conscience, of itself, can actuate the path it urges us into...An interesting insight into Roman Catholic doctrine on the matter, but a bit shy on its grounds for confidence.

Excellent essays on natural law: clear and engaging.