What We Can't Not Know: A Guide by J. Budziszewski

BUY IT NEW

  • Limited Time Offer! Everyone receives the Member Price on books.
    See Details
  • This item is currently out of stock.
  • Add To List uiAction=GetAllLists&page=List&pageType=list&ean=9781890626549&productCode=BK&maxCount=100&threshold=3

BUY IT USED

2 copies from $39.64

See All Available

Pick Me Up

Reserve it at BN.com & pick it up in 60 minutes at your local store.

Enter a zip code

(Paperback)

  • Pub. Date: May 2004
  • 265pp
    Buy it Used: 2 copies from $39.64 See All Available
     
    • Overview
    • Editorial Reviews
    • Customer Reviews
    • Features

    Product Details

    • Pub. Date: May 2004
    • Publisher: Spence Publishing Company
    • Format: Paperback, 265pp

    Synopsis

    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

    Publishers Weekly

    Once upon a time, Budziszewski contends, a common moral ground existed so that all cultures could agree on moral absolutes. In contemporary society, however, such mutual ground has given way to shifting moral sands and new "situational" ethics. According to Budziszewski, an associate professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, none of these new systems offers strong moral foundations. Very simply, he argues, we all have deep inside us a moral regulator-our conscience-that tells us right from wrong. This conscience is part of our human nature, and the law that it writes on our hearts is the natural law of God. Thus, contends Budziszewski, we all know it's wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery or have abortions because our conscience tells us so. No matter how we justify cheating on a spouse, he argues that "we can't not know" the activity is wrong. Budziszewski finds fault with every ethical system but his own because they fail to account for this natural, absolute law written in our hearts. 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. Despite his tendency to make straw men out of the systems he opposes, Budziszewski passionately and polemically challenges what he sees as the moral shortcomings of contemporary society. (Mar.)

    More Reviews and Recommendations

    Customer Reviews

    • Reader Rating:
    • Ratings: 1Reviews: 1

    What We Can't Not Know: A Guideby Anonymous

    Reader Rating:
    See Detailed Ratings

    September 12, 2003: 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.