What We Can't Not Know: A Guide

by J. Budziszewski

J. Budziszewski’s newest book is about the lost world of common truths—about what we all really know about right and wrong. We are passing through an eerie phase of history. The things that everyone really knows are treated as unheard of, and the principles of decency are attacked as indecent. Exposing the emptiness of contemporary moral fashions, Budziszewski explores the rules of human conduct that we can’t not know. Budziszewski’s purpose is to "bolster the confidence of plain people in the rational foundations of their common moral sense." There are certain moral truths—"as real as arithmetic"—that are part of the equipment of a rational mind. He describes the basic principles of morality known to all men, explains why those principles are under attack, and demonstrates that we do in fact know what we think we know. Addressing "the persuaded, the half-persuaded, and the wish-I-were-persuaded," Budziszewski shows Protestants, Catholics, and Jews the unanimity of their traditions on the common truths. And what about the unpersuaded, those who deny the reality of a moral law? They are on the other side of a dispute over the basic norms for human life. Civility, Budziszewski insists, does not require denying the unprecedented gulf between the two sides. What’s needed are both charity and clarity, which Budziszewski provides in abundance. "A few times in a generation, if we are fortunate, moral intelligence finds a voice as lucid, engaging, and relentless as that of J. Budziszewski," says Richard John Neuhaus, publisher of First Things.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Christian, Cultural, Christianity

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

J. Budziszewski (born 1952) is professor of government at the University of Texas, Austin, where he has taught since 1981. He specializes in ethics, political philosophy and the interaction of these two fields with religion and theology.

Budziszewski has written widely, in both scholarly and popular venues, about a variety of moral and political issues including abortion, marriage, sexuality, capital punishment, and the role of judges in a constitutional republic. His principal area of publication is the theory of natural law.

Apart from his scholarly philosophical work, Budziszewski is known for articles and books of Christian apologetics, addressed to a broad audience including young people and college students.

Ph.D., Political Science, Yale University, 1981.
M.A., Political Science, University of Florida, 1977.
B.A., Political Science, University of South Florida, 1975.

2002-present: Professor, Departments of Government and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin.

1995-2002: Associate Professor, Departments of Government and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin.

1988-1995: Associate Professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin.

1981-1988: Assistant Professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin.

1980-1981: Acting Instructor, Departments of Political Science, Yale University.

Reviews

[Angela Blount · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Of course, for whatever is amiss in these pages (and there will be much), the blame is mine. But permit me to be grateful if anything in them is true.”

I’m not sure how to even begin to review this book; the amount of information is so dense and profound. I suppose it’s worth noting that it’s a philosophical examination of morality set from a decidedly Christian standpoint. To that end, I would hold it as a valuable primer for those already biblically inclined, if not everyone who may be interested in the concept of a universally applicable “Natural Law” and the pitfalls of relativism.

"To penetrate the unknown, the mind must begin with what is known already. George Orwell wrote that "We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." This book is an attempt at re-statement."

Budziszewski utilizes concise, comprehensible word choices and a reasoning tone that is vaguely reminiscent of C.S. Lewis (though a touch more insistent and less warm at times—but deeply sincere and remarkably unpretentious.) Much like with Lewis, I found myself highlighting eloquent quotes and deftly worded complexities on nearly every page—sometimes multiple times in a page. There were a number of references to the Stoics and Greek philosophy—which just happened to coincide with my reading of Marcus Arius’ Meditations—and did a solid job of explaining the origins of the Natural Law concept. His explanations for “deep conscience” were similarly compelling.

"If anthropological data suggests something short of the ideal, that is not because nothing is universal, but because two universals are in conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it. The first one we owe to our creation. The second we owe to our fall."

At one point the book employs a dialogue-based range of responses to common arguments against Natural Law. The segment that most struck me personally involved confronting the wanton tinkering with genetics and the “because we can” god-complex involved in altering the base code of humanity:

“… You say you want to change the human design. But in that case there must be two groups: Those who cause the change, and those who result from it. And the former hold all the cards."

The future men will thank us for it.

"If you have changed them, will they be men?"


While I wouldn’t call this an easy or quick read, the amount of thought it provokes is well worth the investment. It may even provide cause (and guidance) for self-evaluation. My primary complaint would be the organization of some of the material. Topics sometimes felt a bit scattered throughout, and a few fixated on too long. But these minor grievances very well could have been adjusted in the newer edition.


Favorite Quotes:

(As you can see, I had trouble narrowing them down…)

*"Or perhaps the syndrome we are witnessing is preemptive capitulation: If we reduce our conscience to rubble before the bad men get here, they will have nothing to destroy."

*"When, despite considerable intelligence, a thinker cannot think straight, it becomes very likely that he cannot face his thoughts."

*"Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge."

*"The goods of fidelity, for example, are plain and concrete to the man who has not strayed, but they are faint, like mathematical abstractions, to the one who is addicted to other men's wives.”

*"Even a liar's speech expresses something true; it may not tell us the state of the world, but it tells us the state of his heart."

*"Christian faith undercuts the urge to fix everything on our own, through conviction of the final helplessness of man and confidence in the providence of God--through certainty that only God can set everything to rights, and faith that in the end, He will. Man can only ameliorate, not cure."

*"The problem was not that they failed to find these principles written upon their hearts, but that they could not bring themselves to attend closely to the inscription."

*"If all meaning were relative, then the meanings of the terms in the proposition "All meaning is relative" would be relative. Therefore the proposition "All meaning is relative" destroys itself. It is nothing but an evasion of reality. That seems a high price to pay, even for the privilege of killing people."

*“Morality is not about whether the human race survives, but about what kind of survival it gets. We marry; guppies don't. We don't eat our young; they do. Yet neither species is in danger of extinction."

*"There is nothing wrong with the basic programming of conscience; the problem is in the interface, the human will."

*"Because I refuse to give up my real transgressions, I invest in other things with inflated significance and give up those things instead. Perhaps I have pressured three girlfriends into abortion, but I oppose war and capital punishment, I don't wear fur, and I beat my chest with shame whenever I slip and eat red meat. Easier to face invented guilt than the thing itself.”

*"This is the most disturbing rationalization of all, because it embraces the wrong with eyes open. The temptation is ancient: "Let us do evil that good may result."

*"We were touched by abomination, and we flinched. But nothing happened. We were touched again. Again nothing happened. By the five-hundredth touch, we stopped flinching.
But something did happen. We became the sort of people who endure the abominable touch.

*"One would think that the world were in thrall to cold deliberation, and our only hope were to get back in touch with our feelings. This is like trying to revive a drunk with vodka. We are not out of touch with our feelings, but infatuated by them.”

*"But how much easier is it to forget the prisoner, give the drunk a drink, send the girl to the abortionist, and tell the kid to just give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true."

*"Every evil thing is a good thing ruined."

*"To mourn treating the image of God as tissue to be harvested in hope of cures, we must sorrow over the sick fancy that there is nothing worse than physical disease."

[Barnabas Piper · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first half or 2/3 of this book is brilliant and stretched my mind and understanding. I was familiar conceptually with natural law, but not clearly or in any systematic articulable way. J-Bud (much easier spelling) wonderfully put the pieces in place for me to see and gain a greater understanding. The last half or 1/3 of the book is less deep, but it quite helpful in taking the massive ideas of natural law and brining them into the societal context. He offers some clear help and principles for what to do with these big truths.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Budziszewski argues that there is a body of knowledge that all people know. He wants the book “is to bolster the confidence of plain people in the rational foundations of their common moral sense,” as well as “present the explanation in such a way that all of the people who think and write about the common truths can achieve a firmer alliance in their defense.” p. xvi

The book is largely a natural defense and explanation of the Ten Commandments. He argues that a moral law exists, and while it is written in the Bible, we don’t need the Bible to know that moral law exists, and what it is. This doesn’t make the Bible itself irrelevant, for “without a special revelation from the Author of the law, it is impossible to know whether the possibility of forgiveness is real.” Without special revelation, we instinctively turn away from the law because its weight is “crushing.” Special revelation “settles the matter of forgiveness once and for all.” p. 26

Naturally, being concerned with law, the book also deals with epistemology. Budziszewski writes that to “investigate how we know things” we “have to know something already—otherwise we have no equipment for the investigation.” What this means is that there “must be some first principles that are not derived from other principles, some first knowledge that comes to us without prior investigation. It isn’t because someone has taught us ethics that we know we have duties toward other people, and if we didn’t already know it, we couldn’t be taught ethics.” p. 77

This, of course, brings us to questions of the foundations of knowledge. The Christian tradition believes as Calvin says, that we know because we know God. God is the foundation of all knowledge and the first supposition.

Budziszewski then begins to show us how the knowledge of the moral law manifests itself and how man suppresses that knowledge. The second half of the book deals with what happens when man suppresses moral knowledge. He writes of the work of the “Furies” as he calls them and how they wreck vengeance upon the guilty conscience. This is one of the greatest strengths of the book.

He writes, “Deep conscience is the reason why even a man who tells himself there is no right and wrong may shrink from committing murder; why even a man who murders may suffer the pangs of remorse; and why even a man who has deadened himself to remorse shows other symptoms of deep-buried guilty knowledge. By other symptoms of guilty knowledge I do not mean guilty feelings, because no one always feels guilty for doing wrong, and some people never do. We sometimes imagine that to lack guilty feelings is to lack a conscience, but deep conscience is knowledge, not feelings, and guilty knowledge darkly asserts itself regardless of the state of the feelings.” p. 81

He argues that design and teleology demonstrate that the human conscience is not in fact an evolutionary response to “help human groups hold together” but instead shows design by a creator—whom we are to worship and obey.

He writes, ““Design is obvious not just in our bodies but across the whole range of human powers and capacities. The function of fear is to warn; of minds, to deliberate and know; of anger, to prepare for the protection of endangered goods. Everything in us has a purpose; everything is for something. A power is well-used when it is used for that purpose and according to that design. Thus the virtue of courage is not being fearless, but fearing rightly.” p. 87

But, as he later writes, you can’t prove all this, because “There is no way to prove the obvious. The time to demand proof is when a traveler claims he has visited a land where people have two heads, not when deep conscience says ‘You had better not cheat.’” p. 103

Here is one of the deficiencies of natural law—it can be, and is, suppressed. Man is by nature, a sinful being. He does not want to acknowledge the fullness of the moral law, and therefore suppresses whatever portion of the natural law he is unwilling to adhere to.

Later in the book, Budziszewski addresses the manner in which we collude with others in suppressing the moral law. He argues that we sympathize with the sin of others because sympathizing with their sin makes our own sin more tolerable to our own guilty consciences, and induces false compassion from others.

But while we may publicly dismiss the reality of natural law and the consequences of sin in the soul, the “Five Furies:” remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification are “inflexible, inexorable, and relentless, demanding satisfaction even when mere feelings [of guilt] are suppressed, fade away, or never come.” p. 140

It is here that the book gets really good. For Budziszewski shows the turmoil the soul faces when suppressing sin. He writes that “The normal outlet of remorse is to flee from wrong; of the need for confession, to admit what one has done; of atonement, to pay the debt; of reconciliation, to restore the bonds one has broken; and of justification, to get back in the right.” But if the “avenging mode” of the conscience is left unsatisfied, these Furies will drive, “the wrongdoer’s life yet further out of kilter.” “We flee not from wrong, but from thinking about it. We compulsively confess every detail of our story, except the moral. We punish ourselves again and again, offering every sacrifice except the one demanded. We simulate the restoration of broken intimacy, by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves. And we seek not to become just, but to justify ourselves.” p. 140

Budziszewski expands on these, and I believe this is the strongest part of the book. He shows, as Rushdoony does in his book “Revolt From Maturity” how the burden of guilt, or guilty feelings manifest themselves in ways that may seem bizarre, but are the typical expressions of the sin-scarred soul.

For example, “So driven are we by the urge to get things off our chests that we share guilty details of our lives with anyone who will listen.” But these confessions “are more or less dishonest. We may admit every detail of what we have done, except that it was wrong. Or we may make certain moral concessions, but only to divert attention from ‘the weightier points of the law.’ We may tell even our cruelest or most wanton deeds, but treat something else about them as more important—perhaps their beauty, or perhaps how unhappy we are.”

This “blurting” as he terms it is, “often misunderstood as shamelessness. It would better be considered evidence of shame. People unburdened by bad conscience do not tell all; normal human beings are more modest about their personal affairs, especially before strangers. But the crucial point about confession is that when it is not in the service of repentance, it remains in the service of sin…” p. 145
“False atonement may indeed ‘help’ with the feelings of remorse, the problem is that it cannot actually atone, and so the need comes screaming back—with the remorse or without it. One cannot repent something in the very act of doing it; suffering is not a fee which makes the deed all right.” p. 151

“Human beings are not like the fabled Cyclopes, who lived to themselves. We are designed for a partnership in good life with our kind. Because transgression casts us out of the partnership, one of the first effects of guilty knowledge is loneliness and a need to reconcile. If we refuse to restore the bonds we have broken, then we must find substitutes. Thieves seek thieves for company; drunks seek drunks; molesters seek molesters. Just because these bonds are counterfeit, they cannot satisfy the need for reconciliation, so it presses us harder still.

The graver the transgression, the wider the gulf between the transgressor and humane society—and the deeper the sense of significance with which the substitute bonds must be imbued. People who have participated in euthanasia or assisted suicide often say that they have never before been so close to another human being; the severing of bonds gives them a stronger sense of intimacy than the forming of them.” p. 152

“The need for reconciliation also explains why the movements for disordered sexuality—homosexual, pederastic, sadomasochistic—cannot be satisfied with toleration, but must propagandize, recruit, and convert. They do not suffer from sexual deprivation, for partners are easy enough to find. They suffer from social deprivation, because they are cut off from the everyday bonds of life. They want to belong; they want to belong as they are; there can be only one solution. Society must reconcile with them. The shape of human life must be transformed. All of the assumptions of normal sexuality must be dissolved: marriage, family, innocence, purity, childhood—all must be called into question, even if it means pulling down the world around their ears.” p. 153

No one has ever discovered a way to merely set aside the moral law; what the rationalizer must do is make it appear that he is right. Rationalizations, then, are powered by the same moral law which they twist. With such mighty motors, defenses of evil pull away from us; we are compelled to defend not only the original guilty deed, but others which it was no part of our intention to excuse.” p. 154-155

This is all great stuff and shows an awareness of sin and its consequences that most are not willing to countenance. Instead, they explain it away in terms of a disorder or disease. But this all brings us back to the question of how to use the natural law and what purpose it serves.

He recognizes the significance of this question and anticipates the presuppositionalist’s argument. He writes that many “believe that fallen man is constitutionally incapable of admitting the obvious. We can try to find common ground, they say, but once we reach our neighbor’s deepest assumptions—the bottommost presuppositions of his world-view—we are stuck. There is no way to challenge these deepest assumptions, because he recognizes nothing deeper in the name of which we can challenge them. Appealing to the Four Witnesses is fruitless; all we can do is show him that his assumptions are in conflict with each other, as inevitably they will be. The idea is that the moment he realizes the conflict among his assumptions, he is in crisis; he must either try to ho hold onto his worldview, knowing that it is incoherent, or embrace another one which will inevitably have the same problem. When every intellectual refuge has been destroyed, one by one, then finally he may be ready to embrace a sane view of moral reality.” p. 205

This is a bit of a red herring, as responsible and mature presuppositionalist thinkers recognize the necessity of using the natural law to supplement their approach. Paul writes in Romans, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:14-16)

The natural law is a necessary tool in exposing the reality of law and sin, and the consequences for all—particularly for those that deny this reality. But just as natural law is necessary, so too is special revelation—God’s law given in his Word. Without this testimony, we handcuff ourselves and leave our most powerful tool in exposing sin and the folly of those that deny the existence of God and moral law.

As good and helpful as the book is, Budziszewski just seems too content to let the natural law stand by itself and find common ground there with the unbeliever—particularly Jews, and others within the Judeo-Christian tradition. But this is really just a kind of concession to toleration that may be satisfying in a predominantly Christian nation, operating on God’s law. But ours is a nation that cannot agree upon much—and each year sees less and less agreement on the bare essentials of common law.

To rely solely upon natural revelation, when we’ve been given special revelation is a losing prospect. Yes, natural law is real and powerful. But it is never sufficient by itself, because unbelievers will resist it, suppress it, and not confess it because they hate it, and they hate God. They may silently recognize it, but they will only publicly do so when it is convenient, and not when it stands to accuse them.

I found this book much more helpful and instructive than “Written On the Heart” and do recommend it.

[Randy · Rating 5 out of 5]

It seems impossible these days to speak of a moral consensus. Even the most basic moral duties are increasingly seen as dispensible: honesty, promise-keeping, faithfulness to spouses. The idea seems to be that at issue is not moral right or wrong, only moral disagreement. But school shootings and desertion of minor children by fathers are some of the symptoms of the chaos that results from adopting as axiomatic that you shall not impose you morality on someone else. In fact to claim as the author is doing, that not only is there a common moral law that applies to everyone, but that it is also in a sense known to everyone, is to evoke feelings of outrage. "Never before," he asserts, "has vice held the high moral ground." Affirming the moral law is called "being judgmental" and "being intolerant", which means it has been judged and will not be tolerated.



The problem has largely been that Christians have been making their case from the Bible when speaking to an unbelieving culture. To be sure, the Scriptures are essential and we must not just put them aside; the question is when is it appropriate and wise to utilize them. Christians believe that God has revealed Himself not only in the Bible but also in nature, in our very design. When making our case we need to follow the example of the apostle Paul, who argued from the Scriptures when speaking to people who accepted them as authoritative. But when speaking to those who didn't know or accept the Scriptures, he argued from what they did know: their altar to an unknown god, and references to their own poets. We learn from Paul that because God has written his law in our hearts, not only is there a moral law that is right for everyone but at some level it is known to everyone, even if repressed and held down. What we call "the natural law", then, involves what we can't not know.



There are four ways that "what we can't not know" is known; these can be called "witnesses". The first witness is deep conscience, to be distinguished from surface conscience in that it cannot be erased or be mistaken. Deep conscience includes basic moral truths like "murder is wrong" and the concept of fairness. The second witness is the witness of "design as such", and this ties in with the first because only if our deep conscience is designed is there any reason to think that it is telling us truth.



The third witness is of the details of our design. Since we are designed, we see that some of the Designer's intentions for us are clear from the human blueprint. We speak, then, of the purpose of the various features of our design. This is important because recognition of that purpose is necessary if the designed feature is to function properly. Finally, the fourth witness is that of natural consequences. These are what result when we thwart the various aspects of our design. Consequences are not the reason a particular act, say, extramarital sex, is wrong; rather they function to point out the natural purposes of things. For example, "the natural link between sex and pregnancy is not just a brute fact to be circumvented by latex; it declares that sex serves the purpose of procreation, of having and raising children."



Having said all that, it does seem that, in a sense, what can't not be known has been forgotten. How could this be? "There is nothing wrong with the basic programming of conscience; the problem is in the interface, the human will." It is true that deep conscience cannot err, but in working out the remote implications, we can err, and worse we can lie to ourselves so that we create problems at the level of surface conscience. We rationalize our deeds, trying to make it appear that what we have done was actually right. When we do this we truly are set on a downward road, going from evil to evil.



A good example of this is the sexual revolution, which, to attain its goals, required getting rid of chastity. This in turn required destroying the privilege of limiting sex to marriage. As one thing led to another this required denying what sex is for: it was no longer for procreation but for pleasure, and pregnancy became an unpleasant byproduct. And so we continued downward, until we reached a point "when we legalized the private use of lethal violence against babies yet unborn. The justification of such staggering betrayal takes more lies than there are words to tell them."



And yet the author is confident that there is hope. The sexual revolution has not brought liberation but bondage. Many of those who have experienced its devastation firsthand are exhausted and disillusioned. Though they may have spent their whole lives repressing what they can't not know, "like crabgrass growing through the cracks and crannies of concrete slabs, the awareness of the moral law breaks even through the cracks of our denials." Christians must become skilled at gently helping the lost navigate through the maze of lies our culture has created. When that is done, a terminal point is reached where the moral law can go no further. It tells us that we need forgiveness, but it does not tell us how that is to be obtained. When people reach that point, then Christians need to utilitize God's other revelation, that written in Scripture. For there is One who is eager not only to forgive, but to make whole again, to bring our lives back into harmony with our design.



For those who are interested, there is a two hour lecture that the author, J. Budziszewski (pronounced "Boo-jee-shef-ski") has given, with the same title, available from Stand to Reason, at www.str.org. I have found it very helpful because it is a difficult book, and the lecture clarifies the central points.

[Josiah Hasbrouck]

my boy really said "The homosexual movement is not gay"

[Jeff Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

J. Budziszewski was an Evangelical who converted to the Catholic Church in 2004. His book on the Natural Law “What we can’t not know” was published by Spence around the same time. Recently Ignatius Press has issued an expanded version of this book with a new preface and updated content. Natural Law theory was something I wanted to go deeper into and so I got this book after seeing it mentioned at Insight Scoop.

I’m glad that I did since What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide is a very good introduction into the Natural Law and really answered some of the questions that I had. The author describes that the book is for “The persuaded, the half-persuaded, and the wish-I-were-persuaded.”

He shows the history of the Natural Law series which was first proposed prominently in Stoicism and has been advanced by all major religious traditions to some extent. This book clears up so many preconceptions on the Natural Law about what it is and what it isn’t. There is certainly much confusion on these points that I have found among Catholics. There has always been a tension between “What we can’t not know” and how we act and that tension is what people often use to deny the Natural Law. Acting contrary to the Natural Law is an aspect of concupiscence and there are many ways that what the Natural Law theorists call the “four witnesses” to the Natural Law can in part be suppressed. Rationalizations and cultural trends can make it harder for us to hear our deep conscience and the other witnesses – but those witnesses are still there regardless.

The writing itself is very good and fits the target audience exactly. I learned much from it and I especially enjoyed the section where is presents arguments against the Natural Law as a conversation between two people. Common objections are presented and answered in a natural conversationalist way. This was really exactly what I was looking for in explaining the Natural Law.

[Christopher Moellering]

Phenomenal.

A strong, coherent look at natural law. J. Budziszewski is one of the most lucid thinkers on the topic today. He writes clearly and succinctly. It creates a book that is easy to read in the technical sense, but not so easy in that he squarely faces the deception and degradation we have inflicted upon ourselves in the West.

That being said, this is honest ethics. It is the plain-speaking, straight-shooting approach I wished I had received in my undergraduate ethics courses in the early 90's, but was nowhere to be found in the university.

I know it's really early in the year, but I'm calling this one one of my top ten books read this year already both because of the importance of the topic and the quality of thought given to it in these pages.

[Deanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has been very useful to me in teaching Bible studies and discussing general Bible study topics. Even though its message is somewhat obvious (hence the title), clarity on the logic is not pervasive. I read this book for a book discussion, but I wasn't there when the book was chosen so I didn't see why it would be a helpful choice until later. I find myself leaning on its content in multiple situations.

[Leslie Moellering · Rating 5 out of 5]

Other reviews of this book give a good idea of the contents. I will only add that as a non-philosophical type, the author has a way of simply explaining hard concepts. It is very readable. And many today would benefit from reading it.

[Andrew Talbert · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found the beginning a bit of a slog, especially the chapter on the Decalogue. After that, however, it was simply excellent.

[Quratulain · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Explains rational foundations of precepts that are not only right for all but are known to all. Helps bring people who believe in common truths into firmer alliance.
The foundational moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level known to all.”
Natural Law- basic moral principles and their implications
We are no longer in ordinary times when people agree about basic norms of human life (even if they violate them), but disagree about their implications.
We live in extraordinary time when people argue about the basic norms themselves.
How do we conduct a dispute in which the norms for dispute are among the norms disputed?
When other people write of the common truths, naturally they will do so from within their own traditions
All people feel the weight of moral law. They may not acknowledge this weight as real law if they don’t believe in God; instead they call it instinct, feelings, socialization.
Traditions that affirm common truths speak in such different ways that unanimity of this affirmation is obscured.
I wish this were only a quibble over words. There are few greater disagreements than the meaning of life and death. It isn’t easy to see how people who disagree about it can agree about much else.
To be confused about fundamental things, one must deeply want to be.
The quarrel is not between sinners and innocents but between sinner who confess the moral facts which accuse us all and sinners who deny them.”
Phase 1 (historical phase of natural Law): ancient philosophers develop intellectual tools for things about nature of beings. Stoics said the principles of these natures could be expressed in terms of law which were work of divine mind.”
Phase 2: theologians studied implications of the law. In natural law, the power, love, and wisdom of God are United.”
This God who has been understood as pure Being or pure thought… now appeared to the eye of faith as the God of men, who is not only thought of all thoughts, the eternal mathematics of the universe but also the power of creative love-agape.”
Phase 3: Enlightenment tried to sever the connection between faith and reason, faith and philosophy. They wanted natural law to be theologically neutral. They thought they could know man without knowing God. They thought the ability of the mind to grasp the truth about man was independent of moral virtue.
When we try to return to an earlier stage and reject what we have learned since then, we lose what we had then too.”
VIRTUOUS CYCLE: They thought the ability of the mind to grasp the truth about man was independent of moral virtue. To see the truth, one must have pure eyes and thus requires moral virtue.”
Relativism: thought each group has its own right and wrong. This reduces statecraft to sheer power, because someone’s right and wrong has to win and there is not way to arbitrate among them.”
Phase 4: there is common ground for morality because there is a single human nature. The more adequately one has been shaped and formed by traditions and disciplines that conform to the natural law, the more clearly one can discern the underlying moral realities on which these disciplines are based.”
Not all views of God, not all views of the structure of reality, not all views of human nature itself are equally adequate. Some make it harder to see the common ground.
We must speak with each other from within our traditions. Even appeal to the generic presupposes the particular.
A law was written on the heart of man but it was everywhere entangled with the evasions and subterfuges of men.
If morality is created, not discovered, different groups and individuals will create different moralities for they will care most about different things. There will be no common standard by which to adjudicate the conflicts among these invented moralities.
The new norm is: You may impose whatever you want to, on whomever you please, for whatever reason captures your imagination.”
The turn to practical ethics deepens the sense that there is no common moral ground— because every practical ethicist gives different answers to the basic moral questions. Except that nearly all of them are opposed to what used to be called morality.”
We are passing through a phase in which we call affirming morality “being judgmental” and “being intolerant”, which is our way of saying that it has been judged and will not be tolerated.
The reason he thinks manmade morality more durable is that he cannot take seriously the idea of morality coming from God.”
The whole meaning of morality is a rule that we ought to obey whether we like it or not. The idea of creating a morality we like better is incoherent.
When a thinker cannot think straight despite considerable intelligence, it becomes likely that he cannot face his thoughts.”
“If your objection to P presupposes P, then you have not given us any grounds to disbelieve P; rather you have given us grounds to think that you know P after all.”
We are not in Dante’s inferno, where even sinners acknowledge the law which they have violated. We are in some other hell. The denizens of our hell say that they don’t know the law; or that there is no law or that each makes the law for himself. And they all know better.”
Definition of LAW: ordinance of reason, for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”
It is called natural law because it is built into the design of human nature and the human mind.”
Rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
Short of divine revelation, there is simply no other place for moral reflection to begin, no other place for the wise to get their data.”
Good moral philosophers connect the dots of what we already know and bring repressed or latent knowledge to the surface.
Pagans are not ignorant of God but ignore Him. St Paul
The nature of any particular thing is a purpose, implanted by the Divine Art, that is be moved to a determinate end.” St Thomas
Law must be addressed to an intelligent being capable of choice.
Man is something that by nature wants to be in friendship with God and that, short of grace, is impossible.”
God is the author of human nature, the direction in which it faces, and the power on which it depends, it’s greatest good. He is the most important simply.”
The elementary principles of the moral law are known by nature, they are elicited, elucidated, and elaborated by tradition.”
A good deal of what we know is latent; we may not realize what it is that we know, and we are unlikely to know all its presuppositions and implications.”
People of our own time are likely to have the same blind spots we do.”
When tradition is silenced, people have to work out all these things for themselves- nearly impossible. Tradition transmits teachings and disciplines/virtues.”
Intellect and moral character work together. Mind is like the eye and virtues like the lens.
Clear vision of moral law is crushing. Without a special revelation from the Author of law, it is impossible to know whether the possibility of forgiveness is real. Divine revelation is necessary.
The greater difficulty lies in speaking with people who have no traditions of unfolding the natural law, only traditions of evading it.”
Faith readjusts disordered mental powers so that we can recognize that the evident is evident. Every created intellect hears the music of its creator.
Faith- conviction of things no seen. Justified by other means than sight. Faith is a spiritual and intellectual virtue.”
First Commandment: benefit incurs obligation. Supreme benefit incurs supreme obligation. We are indebted to God for benefits beyond all others. We owe God loyalty, worship, obedience. To deny Him is the deepest form of treason. We are indebted to God for our being.
God does not need our worship. As rational and moral beings we are endowed with the capacity to recognize what is intricically worthy of our gratitude. It is in our nature to worship God. To pay this kind of debt ennobles us.
Such is our fallen condition that we are not impressed by the stupendous boon of creation.
We naturally understand certain things about the relation of speech to reality. Empty God-talk tells us that where there ought to be God, there is emptiness.
3rd commandment: complete engrossed the in mundane affairs is not merely tiring but debasing. We should do all of our labors as though for God but for God, we should Intermit our labors.”
4th Commandment: parents are God’s delegated representatives to their children. To dishonor their authority is to dishonor the One who appoints them.”
Polygamy whether simultaneous or successive sort undermines spousal intimacy, weakens the bond between father and child, turns women into social inferiors (or at least increases their vulnerability) and kindles jealousy.”
7th commandment: no one may take from another what belongs to him against his reasonable will. Some takings should not be considered thefts.”
8th Commandment: lying to get someone in trouble . The fundamental act of government is judgement.
The meaning of words depends on shared understanding.”
Murderer: the more guilty his conscience, the more naive his expectations; an equivocal answer may catch him by surprise.”
When people are on the receiving end of an equivocation, they may feel tricked, so that the trust and confidence necessary to hearty social life are diminished.”
We sense that lying is something wrong in itself, that words are ordained for truth.
We must not do evil that good may result.
The problem lies in misdirected sexual desire.
Our control over our inward life is much greater than we like to admit.
We all know how indulgence affects the imagination.”
The right ordering of life is more than mere performance and avoidance of various outward deeds. It takes in the entire inward life.
Not only must you abandon the use of lies to ensnare your neighbor, but you must not even desire that he be ensnared.”
According to utilitarians, Deeper Consideration is pleasure and maximizing it is the only absolute”.
There are too many cases in which the innocent fellow is unpopular and other would be happier to see him die.
The natural law tradition denies all such theories which view the everyday moral rules as merely instruments for advancing some Deeper Consideration.”
The patterns of conduct in the Commmandments are not only right but right in themselves. We are not permitted to transgress them for supposedly ‘greater’ ends and we cannot trade them off each other— inviolable and nonsubstitutable.”
Good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.” St Thomas
The moral problem is not that we live ourselves but that we love ourselves the wrong way.”
The two precepts to live God nd neighbor are first principles of the natural law and are self-evident to human reason.”
By continually feeding upon these basic expressions of the natural law (Decalogue and Summary) the mind also gains more strength in recognizing their remote implications. One gains clearer insights.”
There are two ways to know about God: vague, partial, natural knowledge of God that is available to every human being and the knowledge of God offered in direct Revelation.”
Philosophical arguments for the existence of God merely elaborate prephilosohical intuitions such as: anything which does not have to be requires a cause.”
The Abolition of Man: if God designed and endowed us with our nature then we can be confident that we have a nature that we ought to have in accord with His good purposes. The entire basis of morality is the particular nature that we have at the moment.”
Oughtness: in what sense can a godless mind revere the laws of human nature at all? A godless natural law would lose the force of oughtness, it would retain the lower force of prudence. A truly oughtless prudence would be unable to restrain free riders. Anyone who though he saw a way to obtain the benefits of these laws and institutions without their costs or who was willing to accept the costs of transgressing them would do so. From their point of view: good is nothing but the desirable and the desirable is nothing but what they desire. The good for which they feel the greatest desire if the greatest good- just because their feel it.”
The prudence of natural law tradition would say that free riders sacrifice greater goods for lesser ones- they ought to desire better for themselves.”
ARBITRARINESS: if the universe just is, then why shouldn’t the things in it just happen? There is no reason to expect them to yield to reasoning, no explanation of why they should even have an explanation. The apparent patterns are just local, accidental, superficial, inconsistent, and ephemeral.”
Plurality without design is merely chaos.”
Moral Metastasis: we cannot lie to other without rationalizing to ourselves somehow. The reason it is so hard to argue with an atheist is that he is not being honest with himself. It is a lie and lies metastasize; the universe is so tightly constructed that in order to cover up one lie, we must usually tell another.”
The greatest self-deception : pretending not to know that God is real because there are so many things one must not think of in order not to think of the reality of God.”
Does divine law illuminate natural law?
Forgiveness: the law is woven into the deep structures of our minds. That which is not personal cannot forgive.
Providence: self-interest is one of the things that tempts us to commit injustice. One of the strongest motives to do wrong is to make everything go right. Sometimes Justice requires allow bad things to happen to other people. The wrongs of the world would not merely dismay the desire to do right. They would taunt, torture, and drive men to a despair that could be relieved only by committing yet greater wrongs, on the principle that if God is not our Savior, then we must save ourselves.”
Unless there is providence, the urge to do good irresistibly consorts with evil. Unless God is just, our Justice becomes unhinged.”
Without confidence in providence , our vision of every commandment does askew. Conviction of the final helplessness of man and confidence in the providence of God- through certainty that only God can set everything to rights and faith in the end that He will.”
The image of God: man is the image of God, a person by nature a kind of thing different from any other kind, a being whose very existence is a kind of sacrament, a sign of God’s grace.
Divine revelation is an explanation of what it is we are sending when we experience the sense of awe.
Functional definitions are appropriate for things that have no inherent nature, whose identity is dependent on our purposes and interests— things that do not intrinsically deserve to be regarded in a certain way but which may be regarded in any way that is convenient.“
A person is by nature someone whom it is wrong to view merely functionally— wrong to value merely as a means to the ends or the interests of others.”
The proposition: All meaning is relative destroys itself. It is nothing but an evasion of reality.
A person of modern education wants to know how we know before deciding what we know; he demands a critique of the faculty of knowing before conceding that he knows anything at all.”
Four natural sources of moral knowledge: the witness of deep conscience and the witness of design as such, the witness of our own design, and the witness of natural consequences.”
None of the four witnesses provides complete moral knowledge; experience and reflection are necessary. Everyone knows something of the natural law.”
Synderesis: deep conscience is the interior witness to the foundational principles of moral law. It is designed by God as a witness to moral truth. Conscientia or surface conscience is conscious moral belief, especially about the upper stories of moral law.”
Surface Conscience can be erased, mistaken, and varies from person to person. 1)insufficient experience 2) insufficient skill 3) sloth 4) passion- distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully 5) fear6) depraved ideology-interpret known principles crookedly 7) malice-refuse to reason because I am determined to do what I want 8)corrupt custom- do not reason 9)Wishful thinking- include in reasoning only what I am willing to notice.
Deep conscience can only be corrupted by self-deception- telling myself that I don’t know what I really do. Deep conscience includes: knowledge of inviolable good, formal norms, and everyday moral rules.”
We imagine that to lack guilty feeling is to lack a conscience but deep conscience is knowledge, not feelings, and guilty knowledge darkly asserts itself regardless of the state of the feelings.”
Our deep conscience is a witness that is designed by God to tell us the truth.
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” Fred Hoyle
Contingent Being: anything that might not have been requires a cause.”
We recognize immediately that nature requires an explanation beyond itself, that things in nature are designed, that design requires personal agency. We recognize immediately that we are created by the one true God.”
He has set eternity in the hearts of men. Not only has He designed us to know about Him, but He has designed us to long for Him, reverence Him, and adore Him.
Mere recognition of design does 3 things for our moral knowledge: 1) it vindicates deep conscience. 2) confirms that we have duty to God -to whom we owe the very possibility of the experience of anything good, and our neighbor; 3) we are designed, our dee conscience is designed for His purposes.”
Design is obvious in our bodies and across the whole range of human powers and capacities. Everything in us is for something. A power is well used when it is used for that purpose and according to that design— right reasons, in right way, to the right degree- neither more nor differently.”
Witness of our own design: interdependency, complementarity, spontaneous order - the more elaborate the spontaneous order, the more contrivance is necessary to make it come to pass without supervision, subsidiarity- culture should develop in partnership with our design; corrects individualist denial and collectivist perversion.
Relatives are better moral training, just because we can’t choose them.
Higher rungs (government) should be permitted to supply only those aspects of the common good that the lower rungs (families, community) cannot.”
Witness of natural consequences: 1)penalty or consequence is not the reason the act is wrong; it only declares it’s wrong and disciplines us for committing it. 2) law shows what is needed for common good; to certain degree it determines it. 3)system of penalties is not perfectly efficient; up to a certain degree of corruption in the will, the penalty discourages violation but beyond that point it stops discouraging and actually provides a motive to go further yet.”
Human law should never be too far in advance of the level of virtue, which the majority of citizens have already achieved.
The consequence is not the reason the act is wrong; it only declares it’s wrong and disciplines us for committing it.”
The natural consequences of things serve as a pointer to the natural purposes of things.”
Sodomy is self-love with another body.“
Those who will not accept conscience as a teacher must face it as an accuser, and if they still run away they run into even deeper wrong. In this way conscience urges them to get further wrong.”
Whether law compels us to obedience or drives us to further violation, depends on the condition of our h.”
“

[Abigail Hartman · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent work on the natural law, or the moral framework built into all mankind. Written from an unashamedly Christian (in this case, Catholic) point of view, it is nonetheless intended for a diverse audience, especially those who are uncertain what they believe regarding ethics and morality. The author discusses a number of pertinent issues, but focuses most on abortion; his chapter on the Furies of the conscience goes into enough detail to leave the reader - myself, at least - feeling ill. As far as quibbles go, the Catholic viewpoint puts too much stress on man's free will for my comfort.

[alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

My dad's book!

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a useful explanation of natural law and how it works. There is a lot more to say, and maybe some stronger theological and exegetical underpinnings might help.

[Kyra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hello! Back with another "I'm just going to post my essay on this as a review."

In Budziszewski’s “What We Can’t Not Know,” Budziszewski explores the loss of human alignment with the principles of natural law. Budziszewski argues that although the intrinsic principles of natural law are unforgettable, “in a sense, [they have] been” (137). While the free will of humanity fosters hope that the future could improve, the misdirection of the telos of human actions indicates that the downward trajectory of society may only continue to devolve.

In the first half of “What We Can’t Not Know,” Budziszewski outlines that natural law was imparted by God and is recognized through reason, which includes conscience (107). Therefore, conscience serves as a vital aspect of comprehending natural law. When an individual commits a morally wrong action, Budziszewski argues that the conscience intervenes by either indicting us for our wrong (accusatory mode) or punishing our soul (avenging mode) (140). Within these modes, Budziszewski outlines the five furies of conscience as remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. While trying to avoid these five furies, “man becomes both more wicked and more stupid: more wicked because his behavior becomes worse, more stupid because he tells himself more lies” (159). These lies spiral through the “seven degrees of descent”: sin, self-protection, habituation, self-deception, rationalization, technique, and “duty turns upside down” (196). Starting with the initial act of sin, coupled with increased delusion, this descent ends with the complete perversion of morality. At the bottom rung, moral wrong is expected as a societal necessity.

Consequently, Budziszewski explicates why the influence of natural law has declined throughout society. He notes that the modern age constitutes the third generation of television babies, where half-second images stifle reflective thought. Further, culture has become desensitized to moral wrong, as “we became the sort of people who endure the abominable touch” (173) and are infatuated with the importance of our feelings in dictating our actions (176). Further, the atrophy of moral tradition and proliferation of relative truth has weakened th grasp of any objective law. Despite this, Buziszewski contributes that a base comprehension of natural law still exists: “We are put together in such a way that although we can be pushed and pulled and drowsied by flickering images, we cannot be satisfied by them; we know too much even in oblivion” (171).
The public relations of moral wrong engaged in three primary strategies to pervert natural law: Cannibalizing conscience, seducing paraconscience, and doubling the script. To cannibalize conscience, elements of natural law are distorted: “The foundational principles of right and wrong can be neither created nor destroyed by man; therefore, the only way to defeat the natural law is to make it cannibalize itself” (186). Budziszewski defines that the mechanisms of imposture and unraveling pervert the comprehension of the natural law to falsify internal contradiction. In seducing the paraconscience, the motivation to commit wrong stems from the reliance on false feelings and emotion (189). Finally, in doubling the script, the image and arguments presented to the public differs from the internal reality (191). To combat these strategies, Budziszewski encourages issuing “reminders of the moral principles which have been shoved aside [and] clarifications of the ones that have been distorted” (211). Further, true displays of feeling and emotion should present convincing displays to counter the seduction of the paraconscience (209). To address the double script, Budziszewski encourages reuniting its elements and circulating these sides to the general public (208).

Budziszewski leaves us with little hope for the future. The alteration of the telos of many human actions has corrupted society, and this corruption will continue to devolve. While free will provides the possibility for recovery, and Budziszewski outlines several mechanisms to work towards this vision, he holds that the projection for the future looks grim. Still, he terms that a momentum exists in human nature towards repentance: “The indestructibility of our longing for lightness, for purity, for music, is like a small star of hope in a darkened sky, an inkling of the Star that rules the day” (217).

[Evan Minton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a pretty good defense of The Moral Argument for God's existence. The book's primary purpose though, is in defense of the existence of the moral law, without which one could not make an inference to a moral law Giver. The moral law ("natural law" to use the author's terminology) is the thing we can't not know. The author talks about "The Four Witnesses" to the moral\natural law. He deals with arguments given in favor of moral relativism and shows how they ultimately fail to prove that right and wrong don't exist and cannot be known.

I liked the book, especially the chapter where the author answers objections to the case he made up to that point, and he frames it as a back and forth debate between himself and a detractor. His writing style reminds me of C.S Lewis.

I think this is a good book to recommend to people interested in studying The Moral Argument.

[KitCat · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is on my list to read as part of an MBA program. The book is well written and deserves an "I like it" even though I actually hated reading some parts of it as the author challenges some of my own understandings so thoroughly. For example, I can not agree with the author that sex is solely for procreation and cannot strike off homosexuality as being "against natural law". That being said, the logic of the author is very well presented and the way he expresses and organizes his thoughts is beautiful. I wish that my thought process was so well organized. I would not want to debate with the author as he would be able to talk circles around me.

This is a dense book and I found myself outlining out the levels. It was definitely worth the time it takes to read and absorb.

[Josh G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cogent, persuasive, and very insightful. This is a work of moral philosophy that is neither dry, nor speculative. Budziszewski is engaging, reasonable, and compelling. He effectively demonstrates the existence of the natural law by drawing upon the intellectual riches of the Bible, tradition, and logic. Budziszewski also interacts with many objections to the natural law and convincingly applies the natural law theory to the moral insanity of our age.

[Justin Wilkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal book on the fact that the law of God is written on the heart and that your conscience testifies to that law. His argument for natural law is unlike that of many others, and it is one of the most Biblically sound that there is. Powerful examples, beautiful apologetic for the fact that we all know and understand inherent moral values that are beyond ourselves due to the fact that we are created in the image of a good God.

[Chance · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely pleased I came across this book and author, I hope to read his other works. I intend to pass this book onto those who may be straddling the line of subjective "truth" and the objective Truth. For what it's worth, I think this would be a nice pairing and follow-up read to "Ordinary Men" by C. Browning.

[Jeffrey Romine · Rating 5 out of 5]

So much of life is about learning, gaining knowledge, using it to make a living, to substantiate our beliefs, to empower. Natural law is different, as Budziszewski implies with his title. We know and we can't escape what we know - at least not with deliberately construing (misconstruing?) this moral and innate knowledge.

[Mariah Katzin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative and enlightening book. However, I don't recommend that you read this book if you've never studied philosophy before, since many of the topics discussed are very complex and difficult to grasp.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

compulsory reading to cure moral degeneracy. Concise, systematic but eminently readable and engaging defense of the natural law, perfect for young adults facing a world that has tries to pretend the natural law doesn't exist.

[Richard Mounce · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a crucial book.

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good points hidden amongst dense prose and obscure examples.

[Jake Cannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading for every Christian. Budziszewski spends 230 pages proclaiming and proving there are moral principles we can’t not know. The last half of this book left me speechless.

[Aaron Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Powerful book on Christian ethics. Highly recommend.

[Jim Hagemn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinary

A must read. I will probably return to this book, like I do The Abolition of Man, as a sort of vademecum of moral instruction.

[Jeremiah P · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a wise book. It probably won’t convince the unconvinced, but it’ll help the likeminded to think more clearly.

I want to focus on a little section near the end of the book. He gives some suggestions on how not to engage culture.

Exclusivism
By this he means not engaging the culture at all. Rather, enjoying your own subculture – “preaching to the choir.” This approach can activate one’s base but it won’t win hearts and minds. It will however activate and enrage the other camp’s base.

Pearl casting
This is a way of trying to engage the culture but without speaking the language of the culture. Quoting Scripture is a great way to settle a disagreement – as long as the debate is with someone who recognizes the authority of Scripture (though even then it can be tricky!). But what is the use of appeals to biblical authority when you’re in dialogue with people who don’t recognize that authority? When Paul preached in a pagan setting he did not immediately quote Scripture. Rather, he started from the truths that his audience already recognized.

Conversionism
This approach focuses on getting people converted to Christ. Nothing wrong with that! But as a means of cultural engagement it’s lacking. Our society will probably never be made up of mostly Christian people. And even those who have been converted need to have their minds renewed. Finally, some who will never turn to God can still side with us in cultural conflict – if we will give them the opportunity.

Accommodationism
While it is important to speak the language of the culture with which we engage, we must continue to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable allies and grounds for cooperation. We cannot appeal to just any motives that might lead people to common ground. Rather, we must appeal to true and good common beliefs and motives.

[John Orman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Budziszewski here gives us a lesson in right and wrong--and where many societies went wrong in determining which is which.

Moral relativism is where we are today, with the professor attempting to make a case for traditional morality in the face of evil and sin, and that it is possible to define moral truths.

The section headings lay out the logical path of the book: The Lost World, Explaining the Lost World, How the Lost World Was Lost, and Recovering the Lost World. The appendices attempt to summarize natural law, and describe a case in which the professor believes we have tried to circumvent natural law--"the redefinition of pregnancy as a disease."

A philosopher is quoted that fundamental moral principles are "the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge." That means that what is right is right for all no matter what anybody believes is right, and that at some level everyone knows the principles are right, including those who transgress those natural laws.

To the argument of those who claim humanity can create its own moreal meaning, Budzisxewski notes that we cannot create anything, we can only bring forth only from materials already available. He gives this conversational example:

"Nietzsche says to God 'I too can create a man.' God says to Nietzsche, 'Try.' Nietzsche taks a fistful of dust and begins to mold it. God says 'Disqualified. Get your own dust.'"

Well said, professor. We get the point!