S
SalamKhan
Guest
Any suggestions for good books on natural law (morals)?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edward_george1
Guest
One of the best and most accessible texts on the subject is “What We Can’t Not Know” by philosophy professor J. Budziszewski.
-Fr ACEGC
-Fr ACEGC
E
End_Timer
Guest
Just go with “God’s ten”…isn’t that enuf for you ?
E
edward_george1
Guest
Nothing wrong with thinking about the natural law more deeply and examining the connections and implications. That’s what the whole enterprise of philosophy and theology is all about. Why stop with just reading what is revealed when we can use our God-given reason to reflect on it more deeply? Why would God have given us minds if he didn’t intend us to use them in that way?
-Fr ACEGC
-Fr ACEGC
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Yes, I have his book, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, on my self.
Haven’t read through it in full and need to start it over someday.
Jim
Haven’t read through it in full and need to start it over someday.
Jim
E
edward_george1
Guest
I read “What We Can’t Not Know” the summer I got ordained a deacon. I’m about due for a reread, as it would help to keep those natural law muscles limber amidst my current bioethics studies. I found him to be very clear and accessible, and there were so many “mind blown” moments in that book.
I also would be remiss if I didn’t disclose that part of why I enjoyed the book was that the title put the lie to the thing I was erroneously taught by decades of public school English teachers, that double negatives are bad English. Professor Budziszewski ably demonstrates on just the cover of his book that they can be good English, but we’re usually taught they’re not because it’s easier to say that than to teach how to use them correctly. But the difference between “what we can’t not know” and “what we can know” is so vast as to comprise two entirely separate fields of study within philosophy.
Rant over.
-Fr ACEGC
I also would be remiss if I didn’t disclose that part of why I enjoyed the book was that the title put the lie to the thing I was erroneously taught by decades of public school English teachers, that double negatives are bad English. Professor Budziszewski ably demonstrates on just the cover of his book that they can be good English, but we’re usually taught they’re not because it’s easier to say that than to teach how to use them correctly. But the difference between “what we can’t not know” and “what we can know” is so vast as to comprise two entirely separate fields of study within philosophy.
Rant over.
-Fr ACEGC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.