200+ pages of text, however, are a tedious analysis of core legal concepts such as "obligation" and "rule of law." Conceptual distinctions are laboriously identified; sentences are sometimes hundreds of words in length. The basic idea is that natural law is the law necessary to achieve the good of human beings and communities. However, only masochistic students of jurisprudence will stay interested in the entire argument. I found myself inadvertently skimming entire sub-chapters. Readers just getting started on philosophy of law really must begin with authors like H.L.A Hart or Ronald Dworkin.  (less)

by Germain Grisez. Grisez, and following him Finnis, attempt to combine the Aristotelian insight that human actions are fundamentally directed toward realization of or participation in certain human goods, with the Kantian (and traditionalist Catholic) position that certain actions are never morally permissible, no matter what human goods may be achieved by doing them. The justification for this restriction lies in the "incommensurability" of multiple human goods: because goods cannot be commensurated, it is never rational to say that acting against a certain basic good is justified by the overall "better" effect of doing so. This moral principle supplies a justification for certain specific political rights (e.g., the right of innocents not be killed) and so for certain (not all) rights protected in e.g., in the American Bill of Rights.Finnis's political philosophy is based on the necessity of political communities for the realization of certain kinds of human good, which in turn is the basis for the justification of political authority and of law in particular. The foregoing is a very brief and selective sketch of a theory that Finnis develops in great detail over the course of the book's ten central chapters. Although much of Finnis's theory is necessarily controversial--especially his account of the incommensurability of goods--the book offers a subtle, rich, and I think largely compelling alternative to purely consequentialist and purely deontological theories of law and political morality. Finnis's work clearly comes out of a specifically Catholic intellectual tradition, but I think this book can be profitably read by a much wider audience. Finnis never relies on specifically Catholic (or Christian, or religious) doctrine, and he seems to have intentionally focused the discussion away from specifically Catholic moral controversies. The book presupposes some familiarity with moral and political philosophy, e.g., Aristotle's _Ethics_ and modern consequentialist theories. Familiarity with Aquinas will reveal some of Finnis's influences but I doubt such familiarity is strictly necessary to understand what Finnis is saying. Certainly the book's arguments stand (or fall) on their own merits, without appeal the authority of Aquinas.  (less)

Finnis, and his collaborators with him, Germain Grisez and Robert P George (themselves also excellent catholic intellectuals) have found criticism amongst more conservative readers of Aquinas' moral theory. For Finnis, the reasonable grasp of basic goods, i.e., the awareness of first practical principles, i.e., the natural law, is known per se nota, not derived from anything. Especially exciting his defense of knowlegde or truth as an undeniable basic good, although his treatment and defense of other basic goods require development Also interesting is his treatment of Aquinas' notion legal validity in positive law, which he argues admits of a certain abstraction from morality, thereby aligning himself somewhat with Hart's positivism. Issues of Thomistic exegesis aside, this is a magnificent work in its own right, and compulsory reading for ages to come in jurisprudence. A good and perhaps even essential companion is his Fundamentals of Ethics.  (less)

of practical reason (corresponding to the basic human values) and the basic requirements of practical reasonableness (which allow us to reason in a morally right way), and which are the most fundamental truths regarding the community and its common good, justice, (legal and natural) rights, authority, the Law and obligation, unjust laws and, finally, the place of God in this order or practical knowledge. The book is difficult to read, but a source ot true intellectual joy. I have translated this book into Spanish, and this, I guess, might be a sign of how much I think it is worthwhile reading and using it, along with Finnis' "Aquinas" (1998).  (less)

those who care enough to face the dificulties of the text will be well rewarded.  (less)

out of the question, since the author neither give them nor explain them fully. In addition, to the lack of explanations, the author speaks as if he has intelligence. It is clearly obvious that he knows nothing about keeping his audience awake. Despite the fact that this book is boring, the author also loses the audience by making simple arguments sound complex, thus, using uneccessary vocabulary. Granted, this book is not intended for neanderthals, however, anyone would agree that this book is not worth the paper its printed on.  (less)

assessment--utterly unfair--would all too likely blind prospective readers to the many virtues of the position he develops here and in _Fundamentals of Ethics_. In evidence here is the Finnis critical of Nozick's libertarian views of redistribution and implacably opposed to strategic nuclear weapons--hardly the right-wing ogre some of his detractors may suppose him to be. For those who find Kantian moral theory sterile, consequentialism unjust, and intuitionist approaches unclear, Finnis presents an impressive alternative in the Thomist tradition. There's something here for everyone--lawyers, ethicists, political theorists, and theologians will all be stimulated by Finnis's reflections. This book is a call to personal integrity and to political justice that deserves to be heeded.  (less)