Monday, April 30, 2012

The Natural Moral Law Debut

My book with Cambridge University Press is available today.  It is titled "The Natural Moral Law: The Good After Modernity."

It can be ordered from amazon and other book sellers.  I noticed that it ranked #4 today on amazon on the list of jurisprudence books.

If it is ordered directly from Cambridge, and you use the code morallaw12, a 20% discount is offered.

In this book I argue that the good is the central idea for ethics and law.  I study classical and modern theories of the good, and answer postmodern skepticism about human nature and the good.  My argument is that we must be able to know what is good, and that the good is based on human nature, which is based on what is real.  I then give an argument for what is good and discuss how this would ground the moral law, and consider how it applies to some contemporary issues.

8 comments:

  1. this may be an odd question but i am still confused on what Modernity is exactly. any clearification on that? that and post modernism don't really make sense to me. i cant wrap my head around them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a big part of what the book is about. Briefly, I define Modernity in relation to the end of the War of Religion (1648) and the end of WWII (1945). It is defined as a particular view of how we know, and what to do about divisions over what is known.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Look forward to reading if/when the paperback comes out. Do we anticipate this coming out in paperback?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will publish it in paperback next year if the sales warrant it from this year. I had no control over the price, and I know it is priced like a textbook. I'll be using it as one, and perhaps if others do as well then that should encourage CUP to publish the paperback. Really glad to hear from you! So glad you found my blog.

      Delete
  4. I'll likely buy the hardback then. I am not sure I want to wait until next year to read it!

    I sure appreciate the variety of subjects you are discussing here. I have your blog in my quick links as part of my regular routine. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just read the preface and introduction of the book. I am excited for the rest. This is because an aspect of the book and is why I wanted to comment. Interpreting history is an important aspect of man's desire to make sense of humanity. Man is a mystery. It needs to be unravelled and if you spend your whole life unravelling it don't say you've wasted your time. I am studying that mystery because I want to be a human being. - Dostoevsky. This is a quote I recently sent to some of my friend which states that existential need well. By interpreting history and showing the relationship of humanity and the good, I think the book makes important connections and makes sense of a large part (namely history) of ones worldview. I guess I want to say it is an important contribution and it deals with some questions I've been thinking about. P.s. I want to give a shout out also to whoever decision was to put footnotes instead of end notes. It sucks flipping back and forth. Makes the reading that much more enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I look forward to reading this book. Somewhat belatedly though, I do hope that it improves on your past three. I read Reason and Worldview, Clarity of God's Existence, and B.B. Warifled and Right Reason a few summers ago, and was disappointed in certain respects—for one, I don't think I've ever read (published) books with more spelling/grammar errors. Their writing felt like sloppy first drafts. More substantively, Clarity of God's Existence seemed to attempt far too much in a short (introductory) book, and its final argument for God's existence in the latter chapters was a let down (it is not like no one has been trying to develop arguments for God's existence, yet you write like no one has defended cosmological arguments before, for instance). At times you write like many popular Christian apologists, who, after giving an introductory gloss on some topic or thinker (skepticism, Kant, Hume, etc.) which might or might not pass if it were a summary assignment in an intro to philosophy course, makes a quick but confident argument against them and moves on after pronouncing victory. I'm not going to make these generalizations any more specific or substantiated, so feel free to take them with a grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for that honest feedback. In the past I would cringe when I found a typo after going to print. Now I think of them like easter eggs hidden throughout the book waiting to be found.

    To be fair, I wasn't trying to give a synopsis of great thinkers (in Clarity), but looking at some great thinkers through the lens of the principle of clarity. Similarly, I never said I'd prove that God exists in that book, although I did suggest a way to begin (and only a beginning).

    ReplyDelete