The piece got a lot of attention, some positive, some negative:
- R. J. Snell responded critically to Hart's position in "Understanding Natural Law: A Response to Hart and Potemra," although the piece carries an earlier publication date (Public Discourse, February 27, 2013).
- Edward Feser was another of Hart’s critics, responding in "A Christian Hart, a Humean Head" (First Things, March 6, 2013)
These articles are both illuminating about the contemporary state of affairs in the Catholic corner of the public square, and edifying in what they reveal about the often-misunderstood character of natural law. For those who understand the difference between natural law and natural law theories, there is no reason whatsoever to be skeptical about natural law.
One of the best books I can recommend to give the novice a sense of the foregoing, and a powerful sense of how compelling natural law argument can be is J. Budziszewski's What We Can't Not Know: A Guide.
Philosophically brilliant, spiritually insightful, and psychologically shrewd, there is no other book on the subject quite like it. Highly recommended.
[Hat tip to C.B.]
2 comments:
I have read J.B. (I can't spell his surname), and you are right: he plumbs the depths of the psychology of denial, those who plunge headlong into sin and then want to yak about it to everyone they meet as if they were bragging. The section on the "Furies" (as I recall) was amazing.
erinet Yes. Budziszewski's work is excellent and it presents a classic view of the natural law, but from an interesting psychological point of view as well. I've written a synopsis of the work on my blog, www.lexchristianorum.blogspot.com. Another excellent and readable work is The First Grace by Russell Hittinger.
Post a Comment