What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Law and Human Nature Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook - Parts 1 and 2 - Great Courses
Course Transcript Books include lightly edited, professional transcripts of the complete course lectures, as well as full course outlines, bibliographies, and other supplementary materials.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
11 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 10, 2017
The Catholic bias was very obvious, and the chapter on evolution wholly unnecessary -- what's the point of having a chapter that basically says "I don't think evolution is true, but regardless of whether it is or isn't, it has no effect on natural law"?
partially-read
September 25, 20231. Think of a moral rule that you like.
2. Investigate whether that rule has a historical, legal precedent among a set of nations that you like.
3. If you find a precedent in enough good nations, then you can call the moral rule a "natural law".
I became interested in natural law after taking an interest in Hobbes's Leviathan. Hobbes's natural law pertains to the need for survival. Survival is something which many different people agree is a good thing. Professor Koterski, on the other hand, considers it vital that natural law is grounded in one or more ethical theories which establish a distinction between humans and animals. What it means to be human has been richly described across the Western Canon. That description greatly appeals to Jesuits like the professor of this course and many other people, but I would venture that it appeals to much fewer people than the amount of people who enjoy surviving.
I am interested in natural law because I assumed that "natural" had more biological connotations which would unambiguously say things about humans because humans are all animals in the same way. Professor Koterski does not find that perspective worth considering.
One positive is that I did not know anything about the history of natural law before Acquinas and there are several lectures about that. I was expecting the course to cover the history after Acquinas much more extensively and it actually has very little to say before it launches into more thematic or practical (read: "opinionated") lectures.
2. Investigate whether that rule has a historical, legal precedent among a set of nations that you like.
3. If you find a precedent in enough good nations, then you can call the moral rule a "natural law".
I became interested in natural law after taking an interest in Hobbes's Leviathan. Hobbes's natural law pertains to the need for survival. Survival is something which many different people agree is a good thing. Professor Koterski, on the other hand, considers it vital that natural law is grounded in one or more ethical theories which establish a distinction between humans and animals. What it means to be human has been richly described across the Western Canon. That description greatly appeals to Jesuits like the professor of this course and many other people, but I would venture that it appeals to much fewer people than the amount of people who enjoy surviving.
I am interested in natural law because I assumed that "natural" had more biological connotations which would unambiguously say things about humans because humans are all animals in the same way. Professor Koterski does not find that perspective worth considering.
One positive is that I did not know anything about the history of natural law before Acquinas and there are several lectures about that. I was expecting the course to cover the history after Acquinas much more extensively and it actually has very little to say before it launches into more thematic or practical (read: "opinionated") lectures.
January 22, 2023
This was broadly enjoyable, with a few caveats. Though the lectures seemed dense at first listen, I think this is largely an illusory result of the way the author speaks. I'm reminded of that Talking Heads song: "you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything." This series would've taken half the time or less if the professor had aimed for greater clarity and concision. Nevertheless, I had a good time and learned quite a bit for the first 4/5. At around the 80% mark the professor lost all credibility when he gave a lecture on evolution and the natural law. His attitude toward the theory of evolution could be kindly described as incredulous. He also has some strange ideas about the ethics of abortion, stem cell research, and homosexuality.
I have a much greater understanding of what the natural law is, what it's based on, and when and how it applies. I was pushed outside of my comfort zone with certain philosophical questions that I'm still wrestling with, and expanded my familiarity with philosophers like Kant, Marx, and Augustine. The syllabus was embarrassingly devoid of women.
Giving a generous three stars because I didn't hate my time in these lectures. Not a series I'd recommend, though, nor an experience I have any desire to repeat.
I have a much greater understanding of what the natural law is, what it's based on, and when and how it applies. I was pushed outside of my comfort zone with certain philosophical questions that I'm still wrestling with, and expanded my familiarity with philosophers like Kant, Marx, and Augustine. The syllabus was embarrassingly devoid of women.
Giving a generous three stars because I didn't hate my time in these lectures. Not a series I'd recommend, though, nor an experience I have any desire to repeat.
May 4, 2022
Mostly a good deeper dive into the subject. Koterski's bias definitely comes through at times. Perhaps it's due to the length of the lectures, but at times he makes sweeping statements about the certain conditions (gender and what constitutes human life being the two glaring examples) which he defines in narrow parameters and does not address other possible explanations. It's less that I disagree with him on these (though I do which doesn't surprise or upset me), but that the short explanations before building his arguments are neither convincing arguments to those who would disagree with him nor particularly good descriptions of and explanations for his arguments.
The first 2/3 of the lectures are good. Some of the last 1/3 is less so. It's a decent overview of Natural Law.
The first 2/3 of the lectures are good. Some of the last 1/3 is less so. It's a decent overview of Natural Law.
December 20, 2017
He's a Catholic priest. Go figure that he does not treat the subjects of evolution or abortion in a balanced way. You have to set that aside...also, could have trimmed the whole thing down a few hours.
August 12, 2020
A very good introduction to the topic. Koterski is clear and engaging in his presentation. He avoids using jargon and the language of the specialist.
September 11, 2021
CD course. Introduced me to the concept of natural law. A good course as I recall.
December 30, 2022
Interesting series of arguments and perspectives. I almost stopped at first but then muddled through the first foundational lectures and was glad that I did.
February 26, 2023
Pretty good historical overview of Natural Law theory.
September 14, 2023
Gives a good foundation and understanding of Natural Law. Would be an excellent course for all those who spout off on Natural Law, Human Rights, Civil Rights, etc.
September 22, 2023
Heavier in natural law than human nature.
December 10, 2023
Pretty solid up until the last few lectures.
September 23, 2025
I was looking for a primer and this served well. A bit dated with its contemporary chapters.
September 12, 2022
Natural law is often acquainted with morality. Many of the ethical theories of philosophers have a common root—but they differ on their grounds—to rely on before proceeding into ethics. Or, as an alternative, many ethical theories reveal what metaphysical grounds they rely on even if they did not identify them explicitly. Either way, Natural law is a topic of great importance in philosophy—and probably one of my favorite philosophical topics—and in political theory. The philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas often comes to my mind whenever I hear of natural law. It is no surprise since he has written a treatise regarding this topic and impacted how we view it.
Asking for the definition of natural law is quite incomplete. We first have to identify what we mean by nature and what is our understanding of the law. To define nature, according to Aristotle, we observe and reflect, that is, we use inductive analysis. The term ‘natural’ refers to the normal case, i.e., the normal case of a human. We define the nature of a thing first by its genus, what is common with other members, and second, by its species—the difference which sets a set of members apart from the common—for instance, a human being is defined as a rational animal. Law, according to Aquinas, is an ordering of reason promulgated by the person in charge of a community for the common good, and that law must always adhere to reason. An objection to this definition comes from those who hold that a law is a law simply because of the will of a ruler. There are various types of laws according to Aquinas: Eternal Law (the law of God), Divine law (commands of God), Natural law (human participation in God’s eternal law as regards the providential ordering of human life), and human law (legislation). The focus of this lecture series is on Natural law, its history, and some of its objections from different schools of thought. I noticed in these lectures that it tries to define and provide different examples of what natural law meant throughout history. We can think of natural law, too, as a concept of the nature of things generally and what law that bides them together. For instance, pre-socratic philosophers had the idea of a first principle: an element that is the source of everything, such as water or fire. Similarly, religions of any sort hold a similar idea of trying to identify the source or ‘the first principle’ and trying to formulate an understanding of the natural law of the universe as a whole.
When we think of natural law regarding humans, we think of human nature in relation to a universal law, so the question of what a right is stems from the metaphysical concept of human nature and its relation to natural law. These ideas have developed throughout history becoming also part of the human law and legislations of many nations, say, the Roman law or the American Constitution. In Roman law, there is the Ius [Jus], which refers to a general system of law and right, and Lex, which generally refers to a particular piece of legislation. After the Christianization of the Roman Empire—becoming the Eastern Roman Empire, or known as the Byzantine Empire—the canon law was impeded in the empire having also an effect on ius gentium. The American Constitution was created with different roots: by recognizing natural rights that arise from the concept of natural law. As a result, recognizing individual rights and the rights of owning a property which originates from the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Many of the vague concepts seemed clear to me now. I really enjoyed listening to this series of lectures. The lecturer, Joseph W. Koterski, was very insightful, and I would recommend this audiobook to anyone interested in natural law theories as a beginner. It was mostly focused on the Aristotelian ethics and the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas since they were major contributors to this field. Koterski also provided a brief explanation of the other ideas from different philosophers. I also really enjoyed listening to the objections raised by the subjectivists, relativists, and skeptics, it makes it clear by contrasting these three with objectivity and universality, which the former lean toward evading reason and reality. Another objection comes from nominalism, which denies the essence of things, thus logically denying natural law. I’m glad I picked up this book for my monthly listen and would like to hear more from this lecturer.
Asking for the definition of natural law is quite incomplete. We first have to identify what we mean by nature and what is our understanding of the law. To define nature, according to Aristotle, we observe and reflect, that is, we use inductive analysis. The term ‘natural’ refers to the normal case, i.e., the normal case of a human. We define the nature of a thing first by its genus, what is common with other members, and second, by its species—the difference which sets a set of members apart from the common—for instance, a human being is defined as a rational animal. Law, according to Aquinas, is an ordering of reason promulgated by the person in charge of a community for the common good, and that law must always adhere to reason. An objection to this definition comes from those who hold that a law is a law simply because of the will of a ruler. There are various types of laws according to Aquinas: Eternal Law (the law of God), Divine law (commands of God), Natural law (human participation in God’s eternal law as regards the providential ordering of human life), and human law (legislation). The focus of this lecture series is on Natural law, its history, and some of its objections from different schools of thought. I noticed in these lectures that it tries to define and provide different examples of what natural law meant throughout history. We can think of natural law, too, as a concept of the nature of things generally and what law that bides them together. For instance, pre-socratic philosophers had the idea of a first principle: an element that is the source of everything, such as water or fire. Similarly, religions of any sort hold a similar idea of trying to identify the source or ‘the first principle’ and trying to formulate an understanding of the natural law of the universe as a whole.
When we think of natural law regarding humans, we think of human nature in relation to a universal law, so the question of what a right is stems from the metaphysical concept of human nature and its relation to natural law. These ideas have developed throughout history becoming also part of the human law and legislations of many nations, say, the Roman law or the American Constitution. In Roman law, there is the Ius [Jus], which refers to a general system of law and right, and Lex, which generally refers to a particular piece of legislation. After the Christianization of the Roman Empire—becoming the Eastern Roman Empire, or known as the Byzantine Empire—the canon law was impeded in the empire having also an effect on ius gentium. The American Constitution was created with different roots: by recognizing natural rights that arise from the concept of natural law. As a result, recognizing individual rights and the rights of owning a property which originates from the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Many of the vague concepts seemed clear to me now. I really enjoyed listening to this series of lectures. The lecturer, Joseph W. Koterski, was very insightful, and I would recommend this audiobook to anyone interested in natural law theories as a beginner. It was mostly focused on the Aristotelian ethics and the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas since they were major contributors to this field. Koterski also provided a brief explanation of the other ideas from different philosophers. I also really enjoyed listening to the objections raised by the subjectivists, relativists, and skeptics, it makes it clear by contrasting these three with objectivity and universality, which the former lean toward evading reason and reality. Another objection comes from nominalism, which denies the essence of things, thus logically denying natural law. I’m glad I picked up this book for my monthly listen and would like to hear more from this lecturer.
September 30, 2023
not a bad overview of NL, but coming from a faith-based law school, this is old hat...right down to koterski's haughty (albeit enjoyable), nerdier-than-thou presentation (the tradcath presentation is one that you either love or hate; i happen to enjoy it, even if i disagree with these folks) and decision to lecture on things like stem-cell research and the theory of evolution as if they're settled subjects within the (surprisingly) diverse field that is nl philosophy. that said, this set of lectures passed the time during some long commutes, and if you're a nl neophyte, there will be plenty to learn from it and the accompanying course materials.
March 3, 2017
we are created good with freedom, can choose sin as nature weak.
April 21, 2021
Some interesting discussion here on natural law and human nature. But it was quite a superficial survey of the topic in my opinion. He did broach controversial subject matter and made good arguments on those points, but I wouldn’t recommend this for anyone who wants to really explore this area of study.
June 1, 2016
If you want to understand the varied views on natural rights here is a good a place as any to start.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews