What We Can't Not Know: A Guideby J. Budziszewski
Writing from a conservative Christian perspective, Buziszewski (government and philosophy, U. of Texas) argues that not only are there universal moral truths, but that all human beings commonly know them. He says that his "natural law" (which mirrors his conception of Biblical law) is woven into the nature of humans and positions of moral skepticism are in fact false. When he applies his philosophy, it is as a tool in the fight against abortion. Annotation ©2003 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
- Spence Publishing Company
- Publication date:
- Product dimensions:
- 5.52(w) x 9.30(h) x 0.74(d)
Meet the Author
J. Budziszewski is a professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. Among his several books are The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of
Man and The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact,
Theory, and Sign of Contradiction.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews
First off, I have to disagree with the statement in the Publishers Weekly review: 'He also egregiously misrepresents certain philosophical positions to make his case. He mistakenly presents utilitarianism, for example, as an ethical system guided by the principle of pleasure instead of emphasizing utilitarianism's focus on the greatest good for the greatest number.' Here's the definition of utilitarianism from www.utilitarianism.com: 'A moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. Bentham formulated the principle of utility as part of such a theory in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation in 1789. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain or unhappiness, than any alternative.' Who's making a misrepresentation here? Budziszewski has written this book as an aide for those who are already agreeable to his position, which is orthodox Christianity. He says that he welcomes others to the discussion, but he says outright that this book is not intended to persuade the disbeliever. This book is something to be read slowly and carefully considered. Some familiarity with philosophy and world history is necessary, but you don't need a Ph.D. to follow his arguments.