What do you think?
Rate this book
A Consciência e Seus Inimigos
Para muitos, trata-se do mais acessível escrito de filosofia moral conservadora lançado nas últimas décadas; figura em muitas listas de sites e jornais conservadores como um dos livros fundamentais para compreender a perspectiva política e filosófica do conservadorismo moderno.
“A consciência e seus inimigos”, assim, se apresenta como um grande tratado de filosofia moral conservadora, que abarca desde polêmicas políticas do cotidiano, até uma explicação mais profunda sobre como o Direito Natural tomista ainda continua sendo a melhor resposta psicológica e filosófica para a sociedade moderna.
O ponto alto da obra, todavia, está na defesa da consciência individual dos homens e, assim sendo, o roteiro da obra se torna excitantemente paradoxal, pois, ainda que o autor argumente com autoridade e fundamento em defesa de uma visão conservadora de mundo no terreno dos costumes e da moral, logo em seguida ele expõe uma das defesas mais liberais e profundas da sacralidade da liberdade de consciência de cada indivíduo.
Na esteira dos grandes clássicos liberais e libertários, tal como A teoria dos sentimentos morais, de Adam Smith, e Ação humana, de Ludwig von Mises, a partir da perspectiva da tradição filosófica conservadora, “A consciência e seus inimigos” se apresenta como mais um brilhante clássico ocidental da defesa da liberdade individual, um dos mais claros e precisos sobre a temática.
“A consciência e seus inimigos”, assim, se apresenta como um grande tratado de filosofia moral conservadora, que abarca desde polêmicas políticas do cotidiano, até uma explicação mais profunda sobre como o Direito Natural tomista ainda continua sendo a melhor resposta psicológica e filosófica para a sociedade moderna.
O ponto alto da obra, todavia, está na defesa da consciência individual dos homens e, assim sendo, o roteiro da obra se torna excitantemente paradoxal, pois, ainda que o autor argumente com autoridade e fundamento em defesa de uma visão conservadora de mundo no terreno dos costumes e da moral, logo em seguida ele expõe uma das defesas mais liberais e profundas da sacralidade da liberdade de consciência de cada indivíduo.
Na esteira dos grandes clássicos liberais e libertários, tal como A teoria dos sentimentos morais, de Adam Smith, e Ação humana, de Ludwig von Mises, a partir da perspectiva da tradição filosófica conservadora, “A consciência e seus inimigos” se apresenta como mais um brilhante clássico ocidental da defesa da liberdade individual, um dos mais claros e precisos sobre a temática.
318 pages, Hardcover
First published February 15, 2013
56 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
Robert P. George
84 books120 followersMcCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties and philosophy of law. He also serves as the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. George has been called America's "most influential conservative Christian thinker."[2] He is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and the Herbert W. Vaughan senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. He is also a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
December 2, 2019
I began this book not really knowing what it was about but knowing that Robert George was a smart thinker.
I finished this book still knowing Robert George was a smart thinker but still not really knowing what this book was about.
While there are a lot of points in the book I agreed with, it reads more like a series of disconnected articles/reflection pieces than a book that's setting out a succinct argument across the various chapters. There was also an odd mix between some chapters that seemed genuinely aimed at persuasion and others that just seemed like preaching to the choir.
At the end of the day, though, I really just had a hard time following the book and seeing what its point was other than a variety of reflections on the culture wars. There were some strong moments in the book, such as George's defense of religious liberty as a fundamental human right (even though I don't actually agree with him on this point). But as a whole, I felt like it could have used more organization and central thrust.
Rating: 2.5 Stars (Okay).
I finished this book still knowing Robert George was a smart thinker but still not really knowing what this book was about.
While there are a lot of points in the book I agreed with, it reads more like a series of disconnected articles/reflection pieces than a book that's setting out a succinct argument across the various chapters. There was also an odd mix between some chapters that seemed genuinely aimed at persuasion and others that just seemed like preaching to the choir.
At the end of the day, though, I really just had a hard time following the book and seeing what its point was other than a variety of reflections on the culture wars. There were some strong moments in the book, such as George's defense of religious liberty as a fundamental human right (even though I don't actually agree with him on this point). But as a whole, I felt like it could have used more organization and central thrust.
Rating: 2.5 Stars (Okay).
April 23, 2017
I came across Professor Robert P. George's Facebook profile fortuitously due to a friend of mine's liking of one of his posts. Ever so curiously, I clicked on Professor George's profile and ventured upon an enlightening stroll through his posts and various theological/political stances. With every post of his that I read, my respect and eagerness to know more about him exponentially grew. Eventually, I came across his post about his newest book, Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism. Immediately, without the slightest of hesitation, I opened up a new tab, went on Amazon and ordered his book with two day shipping (out of haste and eagerness to read it) only after having read two 140 character reviews.
Having read the book, I can most confidently say, without the slightest of exaggeration or aggrandizement, that it resonated with me on a intellectual, emotional and spiritual level. This isn't of any surprise to anyone who's familiar with Professor George's outstanding academic achievements and his published papers. He is a man of many hats, and this is fine piece of work is the most accurate resemblance of that.
Professor Robert P. George, through appealing to objective reasoning and nothing but rationale, brought forth appealing arguments in defense of traditional family values, their importance as a vehicle of transmitting virtues and noble traits to the upcoming generation, and much more. For the utilitarian's out there, he even proved the vital necessity of preserving the health and stability of the nuclear family by appealing to what's at stake economically. My favorite part of the book was when started (Chapter 4) comparing and contrasting contemporary liberal arts ideals and classical liberal arts ideals. In all honesty, chapter 4 alone sufficed to make this book worthy of purchase. There were so many finely detailed points made, points from which a solid logical understanding of traditional values become cultivated in one. Especially given the era in which we live in, where modesty and any challenge of sexual promiscuity are seen as foreign, primitive and "old-school", this book, chapter 4 in particular, offers a powerful criticism of ideas championed by liberal secularism. This book makes a great case for the pertinence of religious freedom and its recent devaluing.
Unfortunately, as I have little, if at all, interest in American politics, political theory or discussions on the American Constitution, I found no interest or appeal from the chapters which discussed them. However, this is just my own personal preference, on which varies person to person. But having lightly skimmed through chapters discussing the aforementioned topics, one can be rest assured that they too - alike the other chapters I found great interest in and read attentively - were dissected, analyzed and extrapolated thoroughly.
Abortion. Abortion is a controversial topic that weighs heavily on the minds of every practicing theist. Professor George eloquently and most intellectually discusses the numerous aspects of the debate on abortion. As always, he doesn’t invoke upon religious justifications for abortions immorality, but rather justifications rooted in logic and science. He even provides arguments for the secondary “what if…” and “what about…” arguments of the pro-choice side of the debate, providing the reader with a holistic understanding of why abortions are an outright injustice to the most vulnerable among us.
All in all, this is a must-read for all serious theists who find themselves being confronted by liberal secularist principles. This book provides a solid repertoire of defences against secularist dogmas and a holistic understanding of each particular issue at hand.
Having read the book, I can most confidently say, without the slightest of exaggeration or aggrandizement, that it resonated with me on a intellectual, emotional and spiritual level. This isn't of any surprise to anyone who's familiar with Professor George's outstanding academic achievements and his published papers. He is a man of many hats, and this is fine piece of work is the most accurate resemblance of that.
Professor Robert P. George, through appealing to objective reasoning and nothing but rationale, brought forth appealing arguments in defense of traditional family values, their importance as a vehicle of transmitting virtues and noble traits to the upcoming generation, and much more. For the utilitarian's out there, he even proved the vital necessity of preserving the health and stability of the nuclear family by appealing to what's at stake economically. My favorite part of the book was when started (Chapter 4) comparing and contrasting contemporary liberal arts ideals and classical liberal arts ideals. In all honesty, chapter 4 alone sufficed to make this book worthy of purchase. There were so many finely detailed points made, points from which a solid logical understanding of traditional values become cultivated in one. Especially given the era in which we live in, where modesty and any challenge of sexual promiscuity are seen as foreign, primitive and "old-school", this book, chapter 4 in particular, offers a powerful criticism of ideas championed by liberal secularism. This book makes a great case for the pertinence of religious freedom and its recent devaluing.
Unfortunately, as I have little, if at all, interest in American politics, political theory or discussions on the American Constitution, I found no interest or appeal from the chapters which discussed them. However, this is just my own personal preference, on which varies person to person. But having lightly skimmed through chapters discussing the aforementioned topics, one can be rest assured that they too - alike the other chapters I found great interest in and read attentively - were dissected, analyzed and extrapolated thoroughly.
Abortion. Abortion is a controversial topic that weighs heavily on the minds of every practicing theist. Professor George eloquently and most intellectually discusses the numerous aspects of the debate on abortion. As always, he doesn’t invoke upon religious justifications for abortions immorality, but rather justifications rooted in logic and science. He even provides arguments for the secondary “what if…” and “what about…” arguments of the pro-choice side of the debate, providing the reader with a holistic understanding of why abortions are an outright injustice to the most vulnerable among us.
All in all, this is a must-read for all serious theists who find themselves being confronted by liberal secularist principles. This book provides a solid repertoire of defences against secularist dogmas and a holistic understanding of each particular issue at hand.
August 23, 2013
This book makes a strong argument that our social ills are connected to the secular liberal agenda that dominates the politics in this country.
February 14, 2017
Logical, linear trajectory of the consequences of ideas argued from Natural Law, Robert George does an amazing job explaining and exposing governmental ruling over people's foundational moral principles, and how liberal secularism has restrained and restricted rights, dishonestly imposing their agenda and views on people's consciences. Unfortunately the author fails to argue consistently from his Roman Catholic worldview in some areas, allowing the foundations of his arguments tremble. Nonetheless an amazing work. An eye opener!
June 30, 2014
Despite its somewhat combative title and subtitle, Robert P. George's Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism is a refreshingly civil and polite foray into some often contentious issues, primarily abortion, embryo-destructive research, and gay marriage. And though he is quite candid and blunt about his own feelings about the ethics and morality of these issues, Dr. George nevertheless takes extreme care to make his case by arguing against his opponents' positions rather than against his opponents. To which I have to say "Bravo!" It would certainly be nice if more people arguing for either side of such issues would choose to follow Dr. George's example in this regard.
Though it is not explicity represented as such, Conscience and Its Enemies is organized as a collection of essays rather than a single continuous work. This is not the first book I have read in recent years that is essentially a collection of essays semi-disguised and marketed as a single work, and it shares the same weakness that marks all such titles that I have encountered so far: there is unnecessary overlap and repetition of arguments from one "chapter" to the next and a lack of an overall organization (other than an overall, somewhat vague, theme of the contrast between fundamental assumptions held by conservative and liberal viewpoints and various moral and legal issues) unaccompanied by the sort of curatorial process that would normally go in to a well-formed collection of essays in order to assure that such repetitions and overlap are kept to a minimum. I understand that this is primarily a marketing decision (it's generally harder to sell essay collections than unified works), but it's a practice that I think generally does a disservice to the resulting book.
Fortunately, Dr. George's philosophical chops and his astute understanding of constitutional law, all wrapped up in a dense but highly readable prose, make for engaging reading that largely overcomes the book's structural flaws. The book is divided into four parts, the first and last of these parts of which could easily have been expanded into compelling books in their own right. While these two parts somewhat bookend the entire work with a more comprehensive view of conservative vs. liberal assumptions that inform legal and political thought, the bulk of the remaining two sections focus primarily on two subjects: the ethics of the embryo (abortion and embryo-destructive research) and the role of the sate in defining marriage (almost exclusively as it pertains to gay marriage).
While it may be a reflection of my own biases (my views on the personhood of the unborn shares considerably more ground with those of Dr. George than do my views on gay marriage as a legal issue), I found his arguments concerning the treatment of the unborn to be considerably more astute and fully explored than those on gay marriage, which by comparison strike me as more muddled and not as thoroughly thought-out. In both cases, however, it is again worth acknowledging that Dr. George does a solid job at presenting his cases without demonizing those who disagree with him, even though he is clearly a happy warrior when it comes to dismantling arguments with which he disagrees.
While Dr. George is a Christian conservative, he limits himself to science and reason when making his case against abortion and embryo-destructive research. The results are a group of essays which bring an unusual depth of critical thinking to a discussion which has largely devolved into knee-jerk reactions by proponents for both sides of the issues at hand. And, indeed, it is these selections that make this book a worthwhile read for both conservatives and liberals.
I do find his arguments against same-sex marriage less compelling. While Dr. George does deserve credit for acknowledging that same-sex marriage was made possible by a breakdown of "traditional" marriage rather than being a cause of this breakdown (though he frequently, and sloppily, refers to this issue as "the redefinition of marriage"), his own thinking about "traditional" marriage is not yet as thorough and precise as it could be. Most strikingly, he gives no real thought to how modern Western capitalism and the growth in wealth has led to a cultural shift in which marriage has become a means of self-fulfillment and self-gratification rather than simply a more efficient and viable means for successfully raising and civilizing children. Because of this, there is a real gap in his argument for the state's compelling interest in limiting marriage to different-sex couples. He makes a more thoughtful case for cultural shift back towards some of the "traditional" elements of marriage, though even here his idea of what is "traditional" is somewhat ahistorical and filtered through modern Western notions of romantic love (and, implicitly, the self-fulfillment granted thereby) as an essential element in marriage. What he seems unable to do is make a case that, given how marriage has been for some time defined in modern Western cultures, how barring same-sex couples from state recognition of their unions would have any bearing on restoring a healthier and more sustainable model of marriage.
Finally, the book's final part is a collection of essays on various thinkers, some well-known, some less-so, ranging from Justice Harry Blackmun to Eugene Genovese. This part feels most detached from the rest of the book, though there are loose thematic links. This part also feels like it has the most potential to be expanded into a quite interesting work of its own. The subjects of these essays are all united by pronounced shifts in thinking that took them from one end of the political spectrum to the other, often as a result of grappling with the very issues that Dr. George expounds upon in this volume. The result is a series of fascinating portraits of individuals who have wrestled with some of their most profound assumptions about ethics and morality. It is also the section of the book where Dr. George's own political biases most shine through, in that he is much more willing and able to see the shifts of those who moved from the left to the right as demonstrations of courage and adherence to principles than the shifts of those in the opposite direction, which he seems more inclined to treat as arising from opportunism or from misguided and misinformed reasoning.
On the whole, Conscience and Its Enemies is a solid, sharply-reasoned, and accessible work. Dr. George's civility makes this a work which can have appeal even to those who might strongly disagree with him, and as such is a work which should probably be read by anyone concerned with some of the central moral and ethical issues of our time. It is polemical, to be sure, but does show a real willingness to do something more than simply preach to the choir.
Though it is not explicity represented as such, Conscience and Its Enemies is organized as a collection of essays rather than a single continuous work. This is not the first book I have read in recent years that is essentially a collection of essays semi-disguised and marketed as a single work, and it shares the same weakness that marks all such titles that I have encountered so far: there is unnecessary overlap and repetition of arguments from one "chapter" to the next and a lack of an overall organization (other than an overall, somewhat vague, theme of the contrast between fundamental assumptions held by conservative and liberal viewpoints and various moral and legal issues) unaccompanied by the sort of curatorial process that would normally go in to a well-formed collection of essays in order to assure that such repetitions and overlap are kept to a minimum. I understand that this is primarily a marketing decision (it's generally harder to sell essay collections than unified works), but it's a practice that I think generally does a disservice to the resulting book.
Fortunately, Dr. George's philosophical chops and his astute understanding of constitutional law, all wrapped up in a dense but highly readable prose, make for engaging reading that largely overcomes the book's structural flaws. The book is divided into four parts, the first and last of these parts of which could easily have been expanded into compelling books in their own right. While these two parts somewhat bookend the entire work with a more comprehensive view of conservative vs. liberal assumptions that inform legal and political thought, the bulk of the remaining two sections focus primarily on two subjects: the ethics of the embryo (abortion and embryo-destructive research) and the role of the sate in defining marriage (almost exclusively as it pertains to gay marriage).
While it may be a reflection of my own biases (my views on the personhood of the unborn shares considerably more ground with those of Dr. George than do my views on gay marriage as a legal issue), I found his arguments concerning the treatment of the unborn to be considerably more astute and fully explored than those on gay marriage, which by comparison strike me as more muddled and not as thoroughly thought-out. In both cases, however, it is again worth acknowledging that Dr. George does a solid job at presenting his cases without demonizing those who disagree with him, even though he is clearly a happy warrior when it comes to dismantling arguments with which he disagrees.
While Dr. George is a Christian conservative, he limits himself to science and reason when making his case against abortion and embryo-destructive research. The results are a group of essays which bring an unusual depth of critical thinking to a discussion which has largely devolved into knee-jerk reactions by proponents for both sides of the issues at hand. And, indeed, it is these selections that make this book a worthwhile read for both conservatives and liberals.
I do find his arguments against same-sex marriage less compelling. While Dr. George does deserve credit for acknowledging that same-sex marriage was made possible by a breakdown of "traditional" marriage rather than being a cause of this breakdown (though he frequently, and sloppily, refers to this issue as "the redefinition of marriage"), his own thinking about "traditional" marriage is not yet as thorough and precise as it could be. Most strikingly, he gives no real thought to how modern Western capitalism and the growth in wealth has led to a cultural shift in which marriage has become a means of self-fulfillment and self-gratification rather than simply a more efficient and viable means for successfully raising and civilizing children. Because of this, there is a real gap in his argument for the state's compelling interest in limiting marriage to different-sex couples. He makes a more thoughtful case for cultural shift back towards some of the "traditional" elements of marriage, though even here his idea of what is "traditional" is somewhat ahistorical and filtered through modern Western notions of romantic love (and, implicitly, the self-fulfillment granted thereby) as an essential element in marriage. What he seems unable to do is make a case that, given how marriage has been for some time defined in modern Western cultures, how barring same-sex couples from state recognition of their unions would have any bearing on restoring a healthier and more sustainable model of marriage.
Finally, the book's final part is a collection of essays on various thinkers, some well-known, some less-so, ranging from Justice Harry Blackmun to Eugene Genovese. This part feels most detached from the rest of the book, though there are loose thematic links. This part also feels like it has the most potential to be expanded into a quite interesting work of its own. The subjects of these essays are all united by pronounced shifts in thinking that took them from one end of the political spectrum to the other, often as a result of grappling with the very issues that Dr. George expounds upon in this volume. The result is a series of fascinating portraits of individuals who have wrestled with some of their most profound assumptions about ethics and morality. It is also the section of the book where Dr. George's own political biases most shine through, in that he is much more willing and able to see the shifts of those who moved from the left to the right as demonstrations of courage and adherence to principles than the shifts of those in the opposite direction, which he seems more inclined to treat as arising from opportunism or from misguided and misinformed reasoning.
On the whole, Conscience and Its Enemies is a solid, sharply-reasoned, and accessible work. Dr. George's civility makes this a work which can have appeal even to those who might strongly disagree with him, and as such is a work which should probably be read by anyone concerned with some of the central moral and ethical issues of our time. It is polemical, to be sure, but does show a real willingness to do something more than simply preach to the choir.
January 4, 2021
I chose to read this book because I wanted to learn more about the arguments in favor of American conservative principles from a respectable author. Because Robert P. George has held meaningful and constructive dialogue with some people I'm more familiar with, like Cornel West and Hamza Yusuf, his book was the first to mind.
In terms of arguing for socially conservative principles, this book does a fantastic job. From marriage equality to abortion, Robert P. George provides logical arguments based on reason, not revelation, supporting conservative moral views. Though I'm sure many will disagree with them, his arguments are extremely well researched and sophisticated and forced me to think about issues in a way I hadn't considered, especially with regards to abortion.
While its' exclusion doesn't surprise me, I would've liked to see some discussion on conservatives' stark problems with minority ethnic communities. I think social conservatives really need to do some soul searching over the fact that despite being more socially conservative, racial and ethnic minority groups have become pretty solid Democrats over the years. I've seen a lot of conservatives (including Robert P. George) bewildered at the fact that Muslims, for example, tend to vote for social liberals rather than conservatives who share their values. But given that for all of my life prominent, respected conservatives (from Roger Scruton and Theodore Dalrymple to Tucker Carlson and Richard John Neuhaus) have been peddling conspiracy theories about elaborate Muslim Brotherhood attempts to infiltrate congress and perform some kind of demographic Islamic takeover of Europe (apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood can't manage to stop its members from being massacred in Egypt but has somehow infiltrated every corner of the Western world) there perhaps isn't reason to be surprised. I'm sure similar complaints can be heard from other ethnic and religious communities.
In terms of arguing for socially conservative principles, this book does a fantastic job. From marriage equality to abortion, Robert P. George provides logical arguments based on reason, not revelation, supporting conservative moral views. Though I'm sure many will disagree with them, his arguments are extremely well researched and sophisticated and forced me to think about issues in a way I hadn't considered, especially with regards to abortion.
While its' exclusion doesn't surprise me, I would've liked to see some discussion on conservatives' stark problems with minority ethnic communities. I think social conservatives really need to do some soul searching over the fact that despite being more socially conservative, racial and ethnic minority groups have become pretty solid Democrats over the years. I've seen a lot of conservatives (including Robert P. George) bewildered at the fact that Muslims, for example, tend to vote for social liberals rather than conservatives who share their values. But given that for all of my life prominent, respected conservatives (from Roger Scruton and Theodore Dalrymple to Tucker Carlson and Richard John Neuhaus) have been peddling conspiracy theories about elaborate Muslim Brotherhood attempts to infiltrate congress and perform some kind of demographic Islamic takeover of Europe (apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood can't manage to stop its members from being massacred in Egypt but has somehow infiltrated every corner of the Western world) there perhaps isn't reason to be surprised. I'm sure similar complaints can be heard from other ethnic and religious communities.
June 19, 2017
Robert George is perhaps the foremost intellectual defender of orthodox religious belief and classical liberalism in the public sphere today. In this book, he confronts what he believes is the new orthodoxy of secular progressivism, which he believes is a threat to both orthodox religious belief and liberalism, classically understood.
As someone who is very sympathetic to George's view, I had mixed reactions to his style. If anything, he's more forceful than he usually is in person or in articles, and is perfectly willing to point out where he thinks his opponents are disingenuous or illogical. At the same time, he stops well short of writing the kinds of screeds so many others do that wind up being purely ideological hit-jobs. He works to assume good faith and allows for potential weaknesses in his own stances to be explored.
Either way, this is essential reading for anyone interested in the topic. Having read enough of his articles (and Facebook posts) little of this was a surprise to me. Yet it greatly deepened my understanding of these issues. For that, I am indebted to him.
As someone who is very sympathetic to George's view, I had mixed reactions to his style. If anything, he's more forceful than he usually is in person or in articles, and is perfectly willing to point out where he thinks his opponents are disingenuous or illogical. At the same time, he stops well short of writing the kinds of screeds so many others do that wind up being purely ideological hit-jobs. He works to assume good faith and allows for potential weaknesses in his own stances to be explored.
Either way, this is essential reading for anyone interested in the topic. Having read enough of his articles (and Facebook posts) little of this was a surprise to me. Yet it greatly deepened my understanding of these issues. For that, I am indebted to him.
July 13, 2022
Professor George's arguments are at times compelling, and indeed unanswerable. I find myself agreeing with many of his conclusions. The book is overall well written and engaging. However, some of the essays suffer from an overuse of technical obscurantist jargon, and lack clarity. Above all else, the written word should strive for clarity because at the end of the day it is an attempt to capture clearly and concisely complex ideas and transmit them to another. Also in this vein, the professor in some instances (the essays on embryology) created an intellectual construct that does not compellingly demonstrate its conclusions with sufficient persuasive analysis. That is, while I agree with many of his ideas, or at least am willing to give him a fair hearing, his logic chains do not seem entirely sound, and he assumes much as proven or given that may not necessarily be the case. Indeed, the impression is here and there that he lets rhetoric fill the gaps in some of his arguments. I would like to have seen him engage some of the arguments of Dr. Krauthammer about embryology, abortion, and end of life issues. But overall the book is a thoughtful contribution.
March 17, 2023
Even though this book is almost 10 years old, it is still so relevant to the topics that dominate our news today. I came away wishing there were more intellectuals like our author who can confront the antics of liberal secularism with clear thinking and systematic points as he does in this book. I only wish he had more practical applications or illustrations that would speak to me as a lay person. In some points I felt overwhelmed by the arguments he was making from his academic and philosophical points of view. The facts are though that the battle for public policy is at a critical stage in our country for all the issues that matter to me, right to life, religious freedom, immigration, family, marriage and embryo ethics. That doesn't even encompass how to define a woman. I sure he has many thoughts on that as well. A must read from undoubtably one of our most influential conservative Chistian thinkers of this era.
November 27, 2023
Last month, in the space of one week, this book was mentioned 4 times. So I thought it might be worth the time.
I'd be fascinated to see what George would propose as a way forward. Though it got a bit dry and repetitive(because it was a compilation of articles instead of a planned book), I was always curious what new things he would add to the argument. His points on Mill vs Newman were fascinating. I'd love to create my own panel at a conference, though, with him and others on it. And I'd be willing to read more of his work but more interested in a book.
I'd be fascinated to see what George would propose as a way forward. Though it got a bit dry and repetitive(because it was a compilation of articles instead of a planned book), I was always curious what new things he would add to the argument. His points on Mill vs Newman were fascinating. I'd love to create my own panel at a conference, though, with him and others on it. And I'd be willing to read more of his work but more interested in a book.
February 21, 2016
This seems to me a book that not only liberals but hard-line conservatives need to read. Liberals need to read it to think again on their commitments to the "do what one wills" attitude, separation of church and state, political correctness, and most damning of all, abortion. Hard-line conservatives need to read this in order to actually think philosophically about the things that they believe and things that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh seem to promote without true philosophical discourse. Robert P. George may have titled this book to sound like the numerous mass-produced pundit writings by people such as Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, but this is anything but that. It is a reasoned, disciplined, and very intelligent attack on liberal morality deriving its substance from Aristotle, Medieval philosophy, and the Founding Fathers.
Before my liberal friends run all over me for promoting this, let me first state that I do not agree with everything George says. I remain unconvinced and opposed to the idea that same-sex marriage is ruining the marriage culture of American society. Even though George's arguments on the importance of a strong family structure as a pillar for strong society has irrefutable truth to it, I, as a person who knows several gay/lesbian couples who are raising healthy, moral children am still not brought over to his persuasion on it. He does, however, cite his opposition to such policies in an incredibly brilliant and reasoned manner. It certainly made me think a bit and will have me continuing to think.
As for his arguments on health care, I again remain in the center. Even though his argument against the Affordable Care Act as a massive injustice against our Constitution has definitive weight, I have yet to see how a system of healthcare, which has provided services to millions of Americans, is the evil that he is describing. As to its legality, I also remain unconvinced as to it being unconstitutional. The government can constitutionally make its citizens pay for roads, building projects, and even education systems, why not a system of health care as well?
On almost everything else, I agree with him. Religious liberty is fundamental because faith is not formed without reason and without the freedom to develop ones' own quest for truth. Immigration is a beautiful feature of this country and multiculturalism has its important qualities, but respect for the American dream is important. Affirmative action is well-intentioned but seeks to fight hundreds upon hundreds of years of systematic discrimination with fire rather than with water. Utilitarianism undermines human dignity by using human good as a means rather than as an end. Political correctness undermines the intellectual environment necessary for a quest in truth-seeking. Less convinced am I on his arguments concerning natural law, but he makes some considerable points.
Probably the thing which most struck me and which I find myself in the deepest spirit of agreement about are the issues of abortion and euthanasia. Indeed, George speaks most passionately on these things and with good reason. No book or thinker has ever decidedly made me question my previously pro-choice positions. My evolution on this issue has been stamped in by this book: I am now definitively pro-life. George rips apart the "medical, not moral" argument with undeniable logic and then goes on to create a definitive example of personhood, which in George's definition is when a zygote forms (whether I agree with this or not I still do not know). George also rips apart the religious left, with people such as Joe Biden and Mario Cuomo, as being undeniably hypocritical in their rejection of abortion restrictions out of "religious beliefs outside of the political sphere". This may indeed be a valid defense if the policy at issue was diplomatic relations with the Vatican but it does not work with abortion. You would never hear Joe Biden saying "I won't let my religion affect my politics" when it comes to issues of poverty and human rights. This is because these two things clearly extend their moral implications beyond the area of a particular religious sect, as does abortion. If we hold, as so says the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, that all men are created equal (meaning with equal dignity) and we connect this fact with embryology which teaches us that the fetus is an entirely separate entity from the mother, then we are denying basic rights by aborting the fetus. The fetus may not be completely or even partially developed, but since when did level of development become a criterion for human rights? If you ask most Americans whether mentally challenged people, those with Alzheimer's disease, or infants without language capabilities or object permanence should be viewed as a human of lesser value, their answer would be an emphatic no. The issue at hand here then, should not be how developed the fetus is, but whether it is an individual person. I think modern embryology increasingly points to yes. It becomes clear to me that an at least moderately pro-life view becomes entirely natural and indeed, innately humane in this context. The same goes in the opposite direction with assisted suicide.
George creates here a powerful work of philosophy. He is a brilliant thinker whose work at Princeton University should be better publicized. He would give great credibility to the conservative movement in America, if so.
Before my liberal friends run all over me for promoting this, let me first state that I do not agree with everything George says. I remain unconvinced and opposed to the idea that same-sex marriage is ruining the marriage culture of American society. Even though George's arguments on the importance of a strong family structure as a pillar for strong society has irrefutable truth to it, I, as a person who knows several gay/lesbian couples who are raising healthy, moral children am still not brought over to his persuasion on it. He does, however, cite his opposition to such policies in an incredibly brilliant and reasoned manner. It certainly made me think a bit and will have me continuing to think.
As for his arguments on health care, I again remain in the center. Even though his argument against the Affordable Care Act as a massive injustice against our Constitution has definitive weight, I have yet to see how a system of healthcare, which has provided services to millions of Americans, is the evil that he is describing. As to its legality, I also remain unconvinced as to it being unconstitutional. The government can constitutionally make its citizens pay for roads, building projects, and even education systems, why not a system of health care as well?
On almost everything else, I agree with him. Religious liberty is fundamental because faith is not formed without reason and without the freedom to develop ones' own quest for truth. Immigration is a beautiful feature of this country and multiculturalism has its important qualities, but respect for the American dream is important. Affirmative action is well-intentioned but seeks to fight hundreds upon hundreds of years of systematic discrimination with fire rather than with water. Utilitarianism undermines human dignity by using human good as a means rather than as an end. Political correctness undermines the intellectual environment necessary for a quest in truth-seeking. Less convinced am I on his arguments concerning natural law, but he makes some considerable points.
Probably the thing which most struck me and which I find myself in the deepest spirit of agreement about are the issues of abortion and euthanasia. Indeed, George speaks most passionately on these things and with good reason. No book or thinker has ever decidedly made me question my previously pro-choice positions. My evolution on this issue has been stamped in by this book: I am now definitively pro-life. George rips apart the "medical, not moral" argument with undeniable logic and then goes on to create a definitive example of personhood, which in George's definition is when a zygote forms (whether I agree with this or not I still do not know). George also rips apart the religious left, with people such as Joe Biden and Mario Cuomo, as being undeniably hypocritical in their rejection of abortion restrictions out of "religious beliefs outside of the political sphere". This may indeed be a valid defense if the policy at issue was diplomatic relations with the Vatican but it does not work with abortion. You would never hear Joe Biden saying "I won't let my religion affect my politics" when it comes to issues of poverty and human rights. This is because these two things clearly extend their moral implications beyond the area of a particular religious sect, as does abortion. If we hold, as so says the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, that all men are created equal (meaning with equal dignity) and we connect this fact with embryology which teaches us that the fetus is an entirely separate entity from the mother, then we are denying basic rights by aborting the fetus. The fetus may not be completely or even partially developed, but since when did level of development become a criterion for human rights? If you ask most Americans whether mentally challenged people, those with Alzheimer's disease, or infants without language capabilities or object permanence should be viewed as a human of lesser value, their answer would be an emphatic no. The issue at hand here then, should not be how developed the fetus is, but whether it is an individual person. I think modern embryology increasingly points to yes. It becomes clear to me that an at least moderately pro-life view becomes entirely natural and indeed, innately humane in this context. The same goes in the opposite direction with assisted suicide.
George creates here a powerful work of philosophy. He is a brilliant thinker whose work at Princeton University should be better publicized. He would give great credibility to the conservative movement in America, if so.
August 7, 2024
من أردأ ماقرأت هذه السنة لا أدري ما الغرض من ترجمة هذا
الكتاب الذي من المفترض ينقد الليبرالية لكن المؤلف ليبرالي معادي لليسار ويربط بين الأسرة وإقتصاد السوق ويقول إما أن يقفا معا أو يسقطان معا
الأسس التي بنى عليها الكتاب حقوق الإنسان ضعيفة سهلة النقد ولا تخلو من تحكمات حتى أنه لم يعتمد على النصرانية لبناء نقده
الكتاب يخلو من مادة نقدية يمكن الاستفادة منها بدل من ذلك تجد قصص من تاريخ أمريكا لا أظن أن أحد سيهتم بها إلا إذا كان أمريكي محافظ.
الكتاب الذي من المفترض ينقد الليبرالية لكن المؤلف ليبرالي معادي لليسار ويربط بين الأسرة وإقتصاد السوق ويقول إما أن يقفا معا أو يسقطان معا
الأسس التي بنى عليها الكتاب حقوق الإنسان ضعيفة سهلة النقد ولا تخلو من تحكمات حتى أنه لم يعتمد على النصرانية لبناء نقده
الكتاب يخلو من مادة نقدية يمكن الاستفادة منها بدل من ذلك تجد قصص من تاريخ أمريكا لا أظن أن أحد سيهتم بها إلا إذا كان أمريكي محافظ.
May 29, 2025
[This review is for the 2016 2nd Edition]
A insight into the world of conservatism before Trumpism: intellectually consistent and morally grounded.
It forced me to engage with the idea that intellectual conservatism, reaching back to Lincoln, rejects Marbury vs. Madison judicial review.
Very helpful rearticulation of one flesh union being the /definition/ of marriage, not a fruit.
A insight into the world of conservatism before Trumpism: intellectually consistent and morally grounded.
It forced me to engage with the idea that intellectual conservatism, reaching back to Lincoln, rejects Marbury vs. Madison judicial review.
Very helpful rearticulation of one flesh union being the /definition/ of marriage, not a fruit.
March 15, 2018
A tad smug and with circular reasoning -- yet he is much more civilised a reader than many of this type. I appreciated reading something disagreeing with me with out too great an amount of disrespect.
March 4, 2025
Professor George writes about positions I dislike in ways I find compelling, and makes me question the validity of my positions that lean away from traditional social and economic conservatism. However, his sentences are excessively lengthy.
October 6, 2019
Can’t add more than the cover. “Brilliant...Should be required reading.”
February 11, 2020
Honestly, repetitious point-making when you read the text as a whole. The logic, however, is valid and persuasive.
September 4, 2014
This important book is more a "must have," not just a "must-read." In treating the major social public policies of the day, Prof George has compiled in each case a summary of conservative arguments and rebuttals that is important to have at hand, given that counter arguments to progressive social positions are often not allowed to be presented in today's media environment, lest one be accused of bigotry. Secondly, this book is occassionally hard going, develing deeply into ethical, philosophical, legal, and medical foundations of his positions. Nice to have the text available to refresh one's memory.
The book is organized in four sections, the first three address: fundamentals of what makes a decent society (short answer: respect for the human person, the family, and a fair and effective government); secondly, morality, mainly about government incursion into religious spheres, such as same sex marriage; and lastly, life (abortion, stem cells, euthanasia).
The last section consists of short biographical comments on the life and works of people who play or have played a major role in current events. Some of these are darkly amusing. For example, Harry Blackmun (mainly responsible for Roe v Wade) treated abortion solely as a medical treatment. Why? For one, a major part of his career had been as legal counsel for the Mayo Clinic!
I "only" gave it four stars because of the depth of some of the treatment may make it a hard read, though this was probably unavoidable given the level of detail required to address some topics (e.g., the question of where life begins). George does an excellent job where such detail is not required, as in his civil evisceration of Mario Cuomo's argument that citizens that are religious must not oppose abortion because their position has a religious basis.
The book is organized in four sections, the first three address: fundamentals of what makes a decent society (short answer: respect for the human person, the family, and a fair and effective government); secondly, morality, mainly about government incursion into religious spheres, such as same sex marriage; and lastly, life (abortion, stem cells, euthanasia).
The last section consists of short biographical comments on the life and works of people who play or have played a major role in current events. Some of these are darkly amusing. For example, Harry Blackmun (mainly responsible for Roe v Wade) treated abortion solely as a medical treatment. Why? For one, a major part of his career had been as legal counsel for the Mayo Clinic!
I "only" gave it four stars because of the depth of some of the treatment may make it a hard read, though this was probably unavoidable given the level of detail required to address some topics (e.g., the question of where life begins). George does an excellent job where such detail is not required, as in his civil evisceration of Mario Cuomo's argument that citizens that are religious must not oppose abortion because their position has a religious basis.
July 11, 2014
The best part about this book is its title, "Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism". Liberal secular folk (Volk) don't usually realize that they hold positions that are assumed to be true (usually without proper evaluation). Many of the topics in the book were in other books of Prof. George's like Embryo and What is marriage: Man and Woman.
He does explicitly lay out his version of natural law theory more in this book than the others, referring to his "basic goods" ideas with a greater frequency.
The chapter on the Republican party was also good since many people didn't learn in school why the GOP was founded by Pres. Lincoln (I didn't learn this).
The second best part of this book, located at the end, are the short biographies of people who fought against the titular dogmas, especially those who converted from the secular default position to a more natural law position.
He does explicitly lay out his version of natural law theory more in this book than the others, referring to his "basic goods" ideas with a greater frequency.
The chapter on the Republican party was also good since many people didn't learn in school why the GOP was founded by Pres. Lincoln (I didn't learn this).
The second best part of this book, located at the end, are the short biographies of people who fought against the titular dogmas, especially those who converted from the secular default position to a more natural law position.
May 14, 2016
Published before the Obergefell Supreme Court decision with strong counter-cultural arguments
You could read the arguments in this book as tilting at windmills given where American culture is on abortion and gay marriage in 2016. But another fact that is receiving notice in 2016 is inequality and the breakdown of traditional marriage in households without a college education. If you want a better understanding of this breakdown and it's cultural roots this book will provoke your thinking. US inequality is not just an economic story as writers like Paul Krugman try to argue. This book will give you a much clearer understanding of the changes described in a book like Putman's Our Kids
You could read the arguments in this book as tilting at windmills given where American culture is on abortion and gay marriage in 2016. But another fact that is receiving notice in 2016 is inequality and the breakdown of traditional marriage in households without a college education. If you want a better understanding of this breakdown and it's cultural roots this book will provoke your thinking. US inequality is not just an economic story as writers like Paul Krugman try to argue. This book will give you a much clearer understanding of the changes described in a book like Putman's Our Kids
December 14, 2014
I can't give a better summary than this from Amazon: Princeton law professor, Robert George, "explodes the myth that the secular elite represents the voice of reason. In fact, George shows, it is on the elite side of the cultural divide where the prevailing views frequently are nothing but articles of faith. Conscience and Its Enemies reveals the bankruptcy of these too often smugly held orthodoxies while presenting powerfully reasoned arguments for classical virtues." The "light topics" he tackles include abortion, euthanasia, same gender marriage, and religious liberty, and he does a masterful job!
December 30, 2016
A useful book of essays for getting at the underlying "big questions" that the American political landscape, leaning both left and right, tends to obscure (if not obfuscate). Throughout, George carefully emphasizes the importance of ultimate goods and demonstrates the philosophical chops needed to get at the moral assumptions that most take for granted, especially those pertaining to the moral worth (or lack thereof) of human beings.
July 27, 2013
I enjoyed this book. It was a quick read because it didn't go into a lot of depth and I was already familiar with Professor George's writings on many of these topics. Nevertheless, it does provide an introduction to new natural law theory and succinctly illustrates many of inherent contradictions in liberalism.
January 30, 2014
Written by a conservative christian professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. Who knew? Best part of the book was the story behind how "under God" was subtly tried to be removed from the Gettysburg Address. Of course that version found its way into a recent presidential speech which you can watch here: http://youtu.be/FxrXxcexc8Y
March 25, 2014
Very helpful series of essays on issues such as religious liberty, abortion, marriage, education, etc., deconstructing liberal philosophical and political thought with intelligence, wit, candor, and even-handedness. Some of the essays are better than others, but found the book extremely helpful, timely, and necessary. Great articulation overall of the conservative worldview.
December 12, 2015
Enjoyed this quite a bit and very thought provoking. But it appears to be a collection of essays previously printed elsewhere, so there's no through-line and some topics common across essays get treated in a repetitive way.
September 14, 2013
I respect this guy for the thoughtful way he has presented his arguments. He is definitely an intellectual heavyweight who sides with Christian conservatives on many issues, especially social.
November 1, 2016
Very enlightening and well researched. Easier reading than I anticipated and for that I'm grateful. Worth your time!
Read
March 26, 2018This book was a challenge for me because it defends positions on social issues - namely abortion and same-sex marriage - opposite to my own. It was a challenge worth engaging in. Dr. George provides more reason and scientific support for his positions than any other Christian Conservative I’ve encountered. If I couldn’t hear out his arguments for his positions, especially given his accreditation and due diligence, I doubt I’d be able to hear out anyone’s. Dr. George didn’t change my mind on these issues, but he did make me reevaluate my stance on them. I think this is an exercise more of us should engage in
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews