What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Law And Natural Rights (Clarendon Law)
First published in 1980, Natural Law and Natural Rights is widely heralded as a seminal contribution to the philosophy of law, and an authoritative restatement of natural law doctrine. It has offered generations of students and other readers a thorough grounding in the central issues of legal, moral, and political philosophy from Finnis's distinctive perspective. This new edition includes a substantial postscript by the author, in which he responds to thirty years of discussion, criticism and further work in the field to develop and refine the original theory.
The book closely integrates the philosophy of law with ethics, social theory and political philosophy. The author develops a sustained and substantive argument; it is not a review of other people's arguments but makes frequent illustrative and critical reference to classical, modern, and contemporary writers in ethics, social and political theory, and jurisprudence.
The preliminary First Part reviews a century of analytical jurisprudence to illustrate the dependence of every descriptive social science upon evaluations by the theorist. A fully critical basis for such evaluations is a theory of natural law. Standard contemporary objections to natural law theory are reviewed and shown to rest on serious misunderstandings.
The Second Part develops in ten carefully structured chapters an account of: basic human goods and basic requirements of practical reasonableness, community and 'the common good'; justice; the logical structure of rights-talk; the bases of human rights, their specification and their limits; authority, and the formation of authoritative rules by non-authoritative persons and procedures; law, the Rule of Law, and the derivation of laws from the principles of practical reasonableness; the complex relation between legal and moral obligation; and the practical and theoretical problems created by unjust laws.
A final Part develops a vigorous argument about the relation between 'natural law', 'natural theology' and 'revelation' - between moral concern and other ultimate questions.
The book closely integrates the philosophy of law with ethics, social theory and political philosophy. The author develops a sustained and substantive argument; it is not a review of other people's arguments but makes frequent illustrative and critical reference to classical, modern, and contemporary writers in ethics, social and political theory, and jurisprudence.
The preliminary First Part reviews a century of analytical jurisprudence to illustrate the dependence of every descriptive social science upon evaluations by the theorist. A fully critical basis for such evaluations is a theory of natural law. Standard contemporary objections to natural law theory are reviewed and shown to rest on serious misunderstandings.
The Second Part develops in ten carefully structured chapters an account of: basic human goods and basic requirements of practical reasonableness, community and 'the common good'; justice; the logical structure of rights-talk; the bases of human rights, their specification and their limits; authority, and the formation of authoritative rules by non-authoritative persons and procedures; law, the Rule of Law, and the derivation of laws from the principles of practical reasonableness; the complex relation between legal and moral obligation; and the practical and theoretical problems created by unjust laws.
A final Part develops a vigorous argument about the relation between 'natural law', 'natural theology' and 'revelation' - between moral concern and other ultimate questions.
512 pages, Paperback
First published March 20, 1980
60 people are currently reading
1035 people want to read
About the author
John Finnis
36 books50 followersJohn Mitchell Finnis (born 28 July 1940) is an Australian legal philosopher, jurist and scholar specializing in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. He is currently the Biolchini Family Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School and Permanent Senior Distinguished Research Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture. He was Professor of Law & Legal Philosophy at the University of Oxford from 1989 to 2010, where he is now professor emeritus. He acted as a constitutional adviser to successive Australian Commonwealth governments in constitutional matters and bilateral relations with the United Kingdom.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
August 23, 2019
One of the best books I have ever read. As I've said about Hart and Fuller, I completely understand why it's considered a classic. Everything I've read in terms of 20th century legal philosophy has blown me away. Curious if there are any contemporary Finnisians (Finnites?). I'd love to read.
July 23, 2024
One of the few books which can faithfully, substantively, and philosophically reflect the Thomistic conception of natural law without falling into the excesses of Cajetan and the Spanish Jesuits (in rejecting St. Thomas' idea of the "imperium" as the superior faculty of the ratio, thus leading to Dominic de Soto's idea of "retributive justice" as being tantamount, if not the true meaning of commutative justice); and that of the Protestant jurists who employ St. Thomas for their own particular ends (Grotius, Pufendorf, St. Germain, and Hooker / Blackstone) in order to argue for natural law supporting an ipso facto modern account of society being determined by the constituent pouvoir of the "people" who are the visible image of the bonum commune.
This book is not without numerous conceptual challenges, the greatest being that of translating a primarily metatheoretic account of the law (vis-à-vis how religion, philosophy, the arts, and the very constitution of "the intellectual" enrich the legal tradition) into a legal system primarily devoted around the endless proliferation of rights / obligations in the Common Law tradition. However, as Finnis rightly observes, even the positivists import a lot of this "obtuse baggage" into their own accounts of the origin of the law - see Kelsen, Hart, and Rawls on that matter - and thus it is worth addressing, even if wholly unsatisfactory. At various points in this book, Finnis changes the plane of observation, so a coherent narrative is lacking beyond it conforming very well to the meandering quaestio of the Summa; one moment he will be discussing the Aristotelian account of the polis, the next a historic 18th century legal development, then 50 pages later spend a great deal of time articulating the modal logic of how the bonum commune necessitates moral obligations upon all of its citizens.
I wouldn't recommend reading this book unless you're a Strict-Observance Thomist, going into the legal profession, or are just that interested in the philosophy of law & the natural law tradition à la Catholicism more specifically.
This book is not without numerous conceptual challenges, the greatest being that of translating a primarily metatheoretic account of the law (vis-à-vis how religion, philosophy, the arts, and the very constitution of "the intellectual" enrich the legal tradition) into a legal system primarily devoted around the endless proliferation of rights / obligations in the Common Law tradition. However, as Finnis rightly observes, even the positivists import a lot of this "obtuse baggage" into their own accounts of the origin of the law - see Kelsen, Hart, and Rawls on that matter - and thus it is worth addressing, even if wholly unsatisfactory. At various points in this book, Finnis changes the plane of observation, so a coherent narrative is lacking beyond it conforming very well to the meandering quaestio of the Summa; one moment he will be discussing the Aristotelian account of the polis, the next a historic 18th century legal development, then 50 pages later spend a great deal of time articulating the modal logic of how the bonum commune necessitates moral obligations upon all of its citizens.
I wouldn't recommend reading this book unless you're a Strict-Observance Thomist, going into the legal profession, or are just that interested in the philosophy of law & the natural law tradition à la Catholicism more specifically.
Read
January 3, 2023About 100 pages in, I knew I should take Tyler Cowen's advise and just put down the book since it wasn't worth reading, but unfortunately I struggled through another hundred pages of incredibly dense nonsense before realizing there was no sense to be made of this book.
Finnis' argument was in trouble from the moment he said there are "goods" that are reasonable, that everyone must ascribe to in order to be considered rational. How so? No answer. Values are subjective to the individual and reason is the tool we use to achieve those goods, whatever they may be. Finnis puts the cart before the horse.
And I've complained about this before, but since Finnis is one of the worst offenders I'll say it again: academics cannot write. The whole idea of writing is to get ideas across to another person. Dropping in as many big, abstract words in a run on sentence as possible is counterproductive.
Finnis' argument was in trouble from the moment he said there are "goods" that are reasonable, that everyone must ascribe to in order to be considered rational. How so? No answer. Values are subjective to the individual and reason is the tool we use to achieve those goods, whatever they may be. Finnis puts the cart before the horse.
And I've complained about this before, but since Finnis is one of the worst offenders I'll say it again: academics cannot write. The whole idea of writing is to get ideas across to another person. Dropping in as many big, abstract words in a run on sentence as possible is counterproductive.
August 13, 2016
Finnis here defines an interesting argument for an objective moral code influenced by the moral/political/legal philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. His system is called “basic goods” theory.
The essential framework is that the first principle of "willing the good and avoiding evil" is universal or self-evident when defined outside of specific moral content.
Every evil is desired for being a mistaken good. Finnis, (following Aquinas) makes the distinction between “real” goods or “apparent” goods in order to direct the train of logic toward discerning real goods rather than false.
Finnis orders the goods of the human person based upon de-ontological self-evident truth, whereas Aquinas is typically understood to have placed the human good in the ontology of human nature.
Respective goods that he defines include Life, Friendship, Knowledge, Play, Practical Reason, Aesthetic Appreciation or “Religion”.
When the self-evident goodness of Practical Reason is admitted the other goods follow in turn. When defining the rational action of moral agents Finnis deduces rules that determine an objective framework for what is licit from what is illicit in ethics.
Licit actions require that no basic good is intentionally violated for any reason. More freedom is involved when deliberating on which good to pursue rationally at any given stage in life. Rational plans differ from individual to individual.
An important aspect of the system is that each basic good is incommensurable with the others. Every “basic good” is equally “good” because equally “basic”. Therefore, the conclusion is that there is no absolute hierarchy of basic goods. Choosing one good rather than another is somewhat relative to the individual but not wholly arbitrary.
Finnis published this book in part to defend natural law theory from legal positivism. His academic success is continued by a group of scholars including Germain Grisez, Robert P. George and others, who still wield significant influence in academic estabishments.
The essential framework is that the first principle of "willing the good and avoiding evil" is universal or self-evident when defined outside of specific moral content.
Every evil is desired for being a mistaken good. Finnis, (following Aquinas) makes the distinction between “real” goods or “apparent” goods in order to direct the train of logic toward discerning real goods rather than false.
Finnis orders the goods of the human person based upon de-ontological self-evident truth, whereas Aquinas is typically understood to have placed the human good in the ontology of human nature.
Respective goods that he defines include Life, Friendship, Knowledge, Play, Practical Reason, Aesthetic Appreciation or “Religion”.
When the self-evident goodness of Practical Reason is admitted the other goods follow in turn. When defining the rational action of moral agents Finnis deduces rules that determine an objective framework for what is licit from what is illicit in ethics.
Licit actions require that no basic good is intentionally violated for any reason. More freedom is involved when deliberating on which good to pursue rationally at any given stage in life. Rational plans differ from individual to individual.
An important aspect of the system is that each basic good is incommensurable with the others. Every “basic good” is equally “good” because equally “basic”. Therefore, the conclusion is that there is no absolute hierarchy of basic goods. Choosing one good rather than another is somewhat relative to the individual but not wholly arbitrary.
Finnis published this book in part to defend natural law theory from legal positivism. His academic success is continued by a group of scholars including Germain Grisez, Robert P. George and others, who still wield significant influence in academic estabishments.
June 29, 2016
A tour de force from start to finish and one of the great books of the 20th century. Finnis presents a restatement of natural law theory which is designed to avoid cliches and oversimplifications. Its impossible to read this book without being awestruck at the level of scholarship and amount of thought that has gone into the arguments. Each section is carefully thought out and there is a constant sense of unity and purpose throughout. It possibly lacked a bit more energy and at times is slightly convoluted. Plenty to chew on though and likely a book that could be read over and over like Heideggers Being and Time.
January 26, 2022
Astonishingly, mind-bendingly good (though not without its flaws). Finnis is a titan. Undoubtedly one of the most important jurisprudential works of the past couple centuries.
November 17, 2008
I have found a deep issue about Contemporary Positivism in Law and the meaning and value of th New Natural Law Theory like an alternative point of view in Moral Philosophy and Law.
February 4, 2024
This is the well known definitive work of natural law by Finnis. Given it is a work of Jurisprudence or legal philosophy, it reads a bit like moral or political philosophy, but in clear and precise prose though a little dry in style. Finnis stated he did not know then that much about natural law when Hart asked him to write a book with that title for his Clarendon Law Series.
In this work, Finnis sets up a concept of natural law based on natural reason. So natural does not mean naturalistic in naturalism but natural reason. As the main difference between natural law and positive law being natural law has its basis on moral grounding from natural reason, (while positive law is based on legal system convention from legislation), Finnis sets up the moral structure on which natural law is based. In the first chapter on the description of law, Finnis describes law must meet the idea of practical reasonableness. When Finnis uses "practical", he does not mean workable but something with a view to "decision and action", resulting in commitment and carrying out projects. Chapter 3 "Basic Form of Good: knowledge and chapter 4 "The Other Basic Values" present the moral condition of human society by presenting 7 basic values that human community is based on. They are life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability (frienship), practical reasonableness, and religion. Finnis suggests the well being of human society is based on these values that human life is about. Finnis places high importance on knowledge which is good for its own sake and by which one can make sense of one's activity in life. Another important value is practical reasonableness which is no more than Rawls rational plan of life by which one can make a coherent or reasonable life pursuing other values. After showing the human society having values for well being, Finnis presents his notion of community. For Finnis a community is not just a group of people happens to be colocated, but an ongoing affairs of people sharing of life, interaction, and relationship. It is a community of people with life sharing, commitments, and mutual responsibilities. After the notion of community, Finnis presents justice in his moral structure, addressing both distributive justice and commutative justice. His distributive justice criteria based on need, function, capacity, deserts and contributions, foreseen avoidable risk, and practical reasonableness required of the recipient. His distributive justice is very much similar to the communitarian distributive justice according to a complex equality that different social goods should be distributed according to different principles, taking into account the specific characteristics and values of each community in different contexts. Commutative justice has to do with the adjudication of interests between parties in a community which Finnis uses common law of tort and contract law as examples. Sometime a judge adjudicated such commutative cases use distributive justice principles to decide.
In Finnis discussion of rights, he uses a Hohfeld language of rights involving a three term relationship: two persons and an act-description instead of individual rights of one in political philosophy. So rights is a communal concept about what right of action a person has in relation to another person, such as right of non-interference by another or others observance obligation to that person. Given right is a communal concept, right can only exist in a framework of mutual respect, trust, and understanding, especially in an environment where people can have different value pursuit in life.
After providing a moral condition of human society involving values, community, justice and rights, law is the authority by which a community can coordinate the conduct for the common good of the community in which people enjoy the values in life within each own practical reasonableness.
In Finnis discussion of law, he introduces the notion of the Rule of Law. In this notion, law is not just some rules consist in meaning-context but is a virtue of human interaction and community in actual institutions, judiciary, and a class of legal professionals who understand the law. Another aspect of law is the coerciveness to action. Finnis used criminal law as an example according to which it has power of coercion to move people to action and prohibits omission of action to ensure the common good in the community. It also makes sure people of negligence to behave in a desirable manner.
There is also a discussion of how positive law is derived from natural law by a process analogous to deductive reasoning but based part of its force from the practical reasonableness of natural law. Here, Finnis thinks natural law can encompass positive law.
This work of legal jurisprudence is no doubt a classic and remains a go to work to understand natural law. It is a necessary reading to understand natural law though it takes work to get through.
In this work, Finnis sets up a concept of natural law based on natural reason. So natural does not mean naturalistic in naturalism but natural reason. As the main difference between natural law and positive law being natural law has its basis on moral grounding from natural reason, (while positive law is based on legal system convention from legislation), Finnis sets up the moral structure on which natural law is based. In the first chapter on the description of law, Finnis describes law must meet the idea of practical reasonableness. When Finnis uses "practical", he does not mean workable but something with a view to "decision and action", resulting in commitment and carrying out projects. Chapter 3 "Basic Form of Good: knowledge and chapter 4 "The Other Basic Values" present the moral condition of human society by presenting 7 basic values that human community is based on. They are life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability (frienship), practical reasonableness, and religion. Finnis suggests the well being of human society is based on these values that human life is about. Finnis places high importance on knowledge which is good for its own sake and by which one can make sense of one's activity in life. Another important value is practical reasonableness which is no more than Rawls rational plan of life by which one can make a coherent or reasonable life pursuing other values. After showing the human society having values for well being, Finnis presents his notion of community. For Finnis a community is not just a group of people happens to be colocated, but an ongoing affairs of people sharing of life, interaction, and relationship. It is a community of people with life sharing, commitments, and mutual responsibilities. After the notion of community, Finnis presents justice in his moral structure, addressing both distributive justice and commutative justice. His distributive justice criteria based on need, function, capacity, deserts and contributions, foreseen avoidable risk, and practical reasonableness required of the recipient. His distributive justice is very much similar to the communitarian distributive justice according to a complex equality that different social goods should be distributed according to different principles, taking into account the specific characteristics and values of each community in different contexts. Commutative justice has to do with the adjudication of interests between parties in a community which Finnis uses common law of tort and contract law as examples. Sometime a judge adjudicated such commutative cases use distributive justice principles to decide.
In Finnis discussion of rights, he uses a Hohfeld language of rights involving a three term relationship: two persons and an act-description instead of individual rights of one in political philosophy. So rights is a communal concept about what right of action a person has in relation to another person, such as right of non-interference by another or others observance obligation to that person. Given right is a communal concept, right can only exist in a framework of mutual respect, trust, and understanding, especially in an environment where people can have different value pursuit in life.
After providing a moral condition of human society involving values, community, justice and rights, law is the authority by which a community can coordinate the conduct for the common good of the community in which people enjoy the values in life within each own practical reasonableness.
In Finnis discussion of law, he introduces the notion of the Rule of Law. In this notion, law is not just some rules consist in meaning-context but is a virtue of human interaction and community in actual institutions, judiciary, and a class of legal professionals who understand the law. Another aspect of law is the coerciveness to action. Finnis used criminal law as an example according to which it has power of coercion to move people to action and prohibits omission of action to ensure the common good in the community. It also makes sure people of negligence to behave in a desirable manner.
There is also a discussion of how positive law is derived from natural law by a process analogous to deductive reasoning but based part of its force from the practical reasonableness of natural law. Here, Finnis thinks natural law can encompass positive law.
This work of legal jurisprudence is no doubt a classic and remains a go to work to understand natural law. It is a necessary reading to understand natural law though it takes work to get through.
November 3, 2023
Obra fundamental sobre filosofía del derecho. El autor, apoyándose en Tomás de Aquino, realiza una propuesta rigurosa de la visión de conjunto del derecho, la ley natural y otros conceptos relacionados.
Puesto que mis intereses al leerlo eran más bien filosóficos, los capítulos IX (La autoridad), X (El derecho) y XI (La obligación) me han parecido más densos, más técnicos (porque pertenecientes más bien al ámbito jurídico) y con un discurso más difícil de seguir.
Puesto que mis intereses al leerlo eran más bien filosóficos, los capítulos IX (La autoridad), X (El derecho) y XI (La obligación) me han parecido más densos, más técnicos (porque pertenecientes más bien al ámbito jurídico) y con un discurso más difícil de seguir.
May 3, 2024
Finnis provides a very complex account of legality as he breaks down the different aspects of law. He emphasizes the seven basic goods and their necessity in pursuing a common good between individuals within a polis (society) and addresses morality’s role in producing a legal system that pursues a common good. This is a difficult read but a great one for those interested in legal theory.
December 7, 2020
Profound concepts well-explained and argued. He writes clearly too, which is a major boost for non-academias (me) reading this. Granted not everyone will agree to what he says, but his arguments will be more than 2 cents worth to those who read with an open mind and value reason.
December 25, 2022
This is a wonderful book that suffers from sentence length. A good sentence goes no further than two lines. Finnis's sentence can go on for five. His ideas get lost in a smog of words. Strunk: "Vigorous writing is concise."
October 2, 2023
this is offensively terrible and i think it actually made my brain hurt. finnis rebuts a few of hart’s points and makes some cogent arguments for about two chapters and then proceeds for the rest of the book to assert that the morality of his religion is objectively right???
AWFUL
AWFUL
November 7, 2023
Unnecessarily complex, but then again I always find philosophy writings to be. Also I disagree with his outlook viserally and with my whole being. It's the same misogynistic homophobe nonsense that I know I and many of us are really sick of.
November 2, 2019
Un excelente libro para entender la nueva teoría del derecho natural. Sugiero que previamente lean a Germain Grisez, para entender como se entiende la obra de Tomás de Aquino
Read
December 26, 2024Law's purpose is to drive human community towards achieving its ideals, goals, values and standards.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 2, 2016
Perhaps the first thing to mention is that this book is extremely dense! It is by no means an easy read. It can be very frustrating when Finnis repeatedly puts the point of his argument five pages after the explanation, using phrases to state 'in summary' when he really ought to have put the point first and then the explanation! Outside of the bubble of academia, such a book is not very accessible and I feel this is still the case even if you have a basic knowledge on Jurisprudence. I read a couple of the reviews on here before posting my own review and chuckled when I saw that one reviewer quite aptly stated that academics (Finnis included) cannot write to make their ideas come across well to the ordinary person. I feel such a judgment is mostly true, if perhaps a tad harsh. Some sections of his book can be quite interesting if you have a philosophical mind and are curious as to how one ought to live their life. Finnis is a supporter of natural lawyers and a fan of writers such as Aristotle. As such, this should give you a clue as to his writing style!
You might think that this review is elusive as to whether you should pick up this book and give it a read. You would be right. Such a question is difficult to answer because I am internally conflicted as to whether philosophical accounts of life and law actually have a real life purpose beyond filling the time of a few academics. As a student of jurisprudence, such a thought would be seen as sacrilege as we are taught jurisprudence has value because it teaches us to appreciate the application of the law. Yet, throughout my studies I have found this statement to be entirely untrue. As such, if I, a law student obliged to read jurisprudential theories, find their purpose near to pointless, I feel honesty compels me to suggest this book is not a book you choose if, like me, you are a philosophical sceptic.
Aside from my grumblings, I do think Finnis deserves some credit in that he tries very hard to be engaging with a wealth of examples that are relatively easy to understand. At least his tangents have purpose (kind of)!
You might think that this review is elusive as to whether you should pick up this book and give it a read. You would be right. Such a question is difficult to answer because I am internally conflicted as to whether philosophical accounts of life and law actually have a real life purpose beyond filling the time of a few academics. As a student of jurisprudence, such a thought would be seen as sacrilege as we are taught jurisprudence has value because it teaches us to appreciate the application of the law. Yet, throughout my studies I have found this statement to be entirely untrue. As such, if I, a law student obliged to read jurisprudential theories, find their purpose near to pointless, I feel honesty compels me to suggest this book is not a book you choose if, like me, you are a philosophical sceptic.
Aside from my grumblings, I do think Finnis deserves some credit in that he tries very hard to be engaging with a wealth of examples that are relatively easy to understand. At least his tangents have purpose (kind of)!
December 9, 2008
I hate natural law. This guy can bull shit.
Read
September 23, 2010Natural Law and Natural Rights (Clarendon Law Series) by John Finnis (1980)
December 9, 2013
Very good but almost incomprehensible. I will take St. Thomas anytime!
November 29, 2014
Absolute tool.
May 24, 2019
Czytając Finnisa miałem nieodparte wrażenie, że opisuje on świat dokładnie tak jak ja sam go widzę. Obowiązkowa pozycja dla wszystkich zwolenników prawa naturalnego.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews