Written on the Heart
Introduction
Natural law refers to the notion that objective moral principles are knowable by all people and that every person is bound to them by nature (Murphy, 2019). As a significant contributor to the Natural Law theory, Thomas Aquinas maintained that all people are rational creatures by nature and, thus, are naturally predisposed to pursue good over evil. Although these moral principles are not always evident epistemologically, they are discoverable through the use of reason (Himmel, n.d.).
Natural Law was the primary legal theory employed in Great Britain and the United States prior to the nineteenth century. However, it began to lose its prominence in part due to the writing of the U.S. Constitution and natural law advocates’ inability to agree on specific moral standards (Tindall, 2022). Budziszewski’s (1997) Written on the Heart attempts to recover and revive Natural Law and present it as a valid alternative to historical consequentialism and contemporary moral relativism. This paper will summarize the book’s contents before analyzing the author’s reasoning and arguments for Natural Law.
Summary
Written on the Heart (Budziszewski, 1997) is meant to be a short commentary for students and scholars wishing to learn about the Natural Law tradition by reading the book itself or by reading it alongside the primary sources discussed in it (p. 10). The book is divided into two main halves, with a short intermezzo between them. The first half is devoted to a quick survey of the three historical philosophers who are Natural Law’s primary contributors and includes Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke. Budziszewski focuses on how each defines and progresses the concepts of Natural Law and the points on which they differ. The arguments of these thinkers are then contrasted with Jeremy Bentham’s and John Mill’s Utilitarianism.
Following this survey of thoughts, Budziszewski (1997) includes a one-chapter intermezzo in which he describes the existence of what he calls a “baloney meter” (p. 171). This meter represents every person’s ability to identify a false claim. Budziszewski explains that although this ability is found in all people by nature, modern higher education has skewed the meter’s functioning in many educated people by promulgating deceptive “dogmas” that hide under the guise of liberation (p. 174). Budziszewski suggests that the cure for this improper functioning is for students and scholars to unlearn these dogmas so they can learn the truth (p. 175).
In the book’s final section, Budziszewski (1997) moves away from his broad survey of Natural Law’s historical themes to his contribution to the discussion. He begins by describing the relationship between Natural Law and the Christian faith, then attempts to analyze the previously mentioned philosophers’ arguments and the modern trends in the field. The final chapter is devoted to a quick explanation of logical reasoning and fallacies.
Analysis
Budziszewski (1997) successfully draws a clear connection between the thoughts of historical Natural Law thinkers. By focusing on the primary contributions of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke, the book’s first half is a helpful introduction for students beginning their studies in Natural Law. Budziszewski also provides a fair analysis of these philosophers’ ideas by emphasizing their valid arguments and where they fell short. Although not comprehensive, the survey of historical thinkers and the author’s inclusion of Bentham’s and Mill’s Utilitarianism as a counterargument to Natural Law further bolsters Budziszewski’s argument.
Budziszewski (1997, pp. 12, 179) states early in his book that he makes his argument for Natural Law as a Christian but that he still intends the writing to be useful for anyone seeking to learn about the tradition from a Christian perspective. The influence of Budziszewski’s preconceptions surfaces when he explains the ways in which Aquinas believed human laws could be unjust. One of the two ways a human law could be unjust is if it contradicts Divine Law (p. 82). Budziszewski (1997, p. 82) clarifies this point for his readers by stating that any human law contrary to one of the Ten Commandments is unjust and that a citizen would have no duty other than to disobey that unjust law.
Budziszewski (1997) assumes here that the Divine Law is the Biblical Law. For this reason, the author’s argument for Natural Law attempts to convince all people (and their governments) that they should base their ethical standards on Biblical revelation regardless of their religious beliefs. In this way, Budziszewski’s argument for Natural Law is limited in its reach and usefulness. In contrast, Deinhammer (2021) suggested combining the foundations of Natural Law — innate moral knowledge and metaphysical realism — with the contemporary philosophical trend of Critical Rationalism to extend Natural Law’s general usability.
Budziszewski’s (1997) analysis of Mill’s utility principle is sometimes shortsighted, containing breadth, according to the number of issues Budziszewski finds in Mill, but lacking in depth. One such area is when Budziszewski asserts that Mill’s notion of “utility” is equivalent to the common meaning of “expediency” or usefulness (p. 161). Budziszewski then claims that a Utilitarian would be willing to deny what Natural Law calls justice if the action is more expedient in the short term.
However, Mill (1861/2001) himself refutes this claim by arguing that this definition of expediency is not an attribute of utility because people acting in this selfish way would detriment societal trust (which is indispensable for a healthy society) and, therefore, overall human happiness; thus, the action would be morally wrong (p. 22). In the same passage, Mill confirms that his principle of utility is compatible with the cultivation of virtue (which is the source of human happiness) but that the utility principle is most helpful in deciding how to act in moments of exception to virtue (p. 22). Mill gives the example of withholding bad news from a sick and dying person to spare them the pain of knowing the bad news. In this way, Budziszewski’s (1997) assertion that Mill’s concept of utility necessarily equates to personal expediency is unfounded.
Budziszewski (1997) discounts Utilitarianism as a whole, finding many faults in the theory without grasping its beneficial qualities (pp. 143, 166). Consequentialism may even be found in the Scriptures. One example is Proverbs 3:1–2 (English Standard Bible, 2001/2016), where the reader is encouraged to obey wisdom and instruction “for length of days and years of life and peace they will add to [her].”
Mill (1861/2001, p. 17) similarly identified this concept in Jesus’ teachings to treat others as one wishes to be treated (English Standard Bible, 2001/2016, Matthew 7:12) and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (English Standard Bible, 2001/2016, Mark 12:31). Although the Bible does not necessarily endorse Utilitarianism, elements of the moral framework are present in Scripture and may be useful for Christians, especially in deciding how to act when in exceptional circumstances, such as lying to Nazi officers to save the lives of a Jewish family. Budziszewski (1997) could have conceded this point considering the complexity of moral decision-making in the real world but instead chose to hold solely to his view of Natural Law.
Conclusion
Budziszewski’s (1997) Written on the Heart is a valuable companion for students beginning their academic journey in political theory and authoritative scholars wanting to understand Natural Law from a Christian perspective. Despite lacking depth in some of his arguments against Mill’s Utilitarianism, Budziszewski provides a critical analysis of the historical contributions to Natural Law and a preliminary answer to some of its critics. This review provided a short summary of the book’s contents and analyzed the assumptions and arguments Budziszewski employed to defend the tradition of Natural Law and its relevance to today’s society.
References
Budziszewski, J. (1997). Written on the heart: The case for natural law. InterVarsity Press.
Deinhammer, R., S.J. (2021). Can natural law ethics be tenable today? Towards a critical natural law theory. The Heythrop Journal, 62(3), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.12345
English Standard Bible. (2016). Crossway Bibles. (Original work published 2001)
Himma, K. E. (N.d.) Natural Law. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism. (G. Sher, Ed.) (2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Kindle. (Original work published 1861).
Murphy, M. (2019, May 26). The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
Tindall, R. (2022). [Review of the book The Decline of Natural Law: How American Lawyers Once Used Natural Law and Why They Stopped, by S. Banner]. The Florida Bar Journal, 96(5), 55–56.
