SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Postmodern Conservative
Archive

Categories

Monthly


Blogroll



« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Friday, September 9, 2011, 1:14 PM

So this review was written by a distinguished political theory guy who isn’t particularly close to my general orientation. You can tell he didn’t like the book all that much. But I still appreciate the opening words:

Lawler, Peter Augustine. Modern and American dignity: who we are as persons, and what that means for our future. ISI Books, 2010. 278p index; ISBN 9781935191896, $26.95. Reviewed in 2011aug CHOICE.
In a collection of 12 essays, written with grace, wit, and irrepressible self-assurance, Lawler (Berry College) explores the moral, philosophical, and religious sources of human dignity. As a member of President Bush’s controversial Council on Bioethics, Lawler argues that human rights and choices must rest on human dignity, and that dignity requires ontology–a concept of a person as a whole being–at odds with both neo-Darwinian sociobiology and Enlightenment individualism. Drawing from Aristotle, Augustine, and Tocqueville, and addressing a host of contemporary writings, Lawler challenges the modern notion that “dignity is displayed in the freedom that produces the rational control allowing us to give orders to nature, including our own bodies.” Indeed, “it’s inhuman and undignified to feign indifference to the answers to the theological questions we can’t help but raise.” Essays on natural law and the American founding suggest that these sources of human dignity can shield us from both technocratic hubris and moral nihilism. Charles Taylor, in Ethics of Authenticity (1992), and Steven White, in Sustaining Affirmation (2000), provide equally strong critiques of modern individuality but suggest quite different answers. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers; upper-division undergraduate students and above. — E. J. Eisenach, emeritus, University of Tulsa

6 Comments

    Question on a footnote
    September 9th, 2011 | 2:47 pm

    I tried finding the article you cited near the end of your chapter of JC Murray. You are quoting a section of an essay by Francis Canavan, talking about SCOTUS’s use of Lockean nominalsim in interpreting several amendments. Is this the article? (http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR87203.TXT) I only ask because I wasn’t able to find the exact words you quoted, and I’m looking for the original source for an article. Could you point me in the write direction if I’m on the wrong track?

    Peter Lawler
    September 9th, 2011 | 3:07 pm

    will look into it and get back to you.

    Thanks
    September 9th, 2011 | 3:18 pm

    Thank you. I really enjoyed the JCM chapter, particularly the last few pages. I would encourage you to build on the Lockean-Murrean-Canavanian-Constitutional analysis, but then I wouldn’t have anything to write about.

    Germaine
    September 10th, 2011 | 8:33 am

    Hi Peter,

    If only all members of our profession approached the task of reviewing a book in they way this man does! He characterized your thesis accurately, giving praise where praise is due. He communicated his disagreement not through some snide or flippant remark to dismiss your argument, but rather by politely pointing to some other thinkers who address similar themes but reach different conclusions. So I’m impressed.

    Also want to mention my admiration for the recent changes made to this website. I’ve enjoyed reading Pete’s campaign commentary and Carl’s rock music commentary. (Carl, maybe your could give us your insights on two of my “political” favorites: Scorpion’s “Wind of Change” and Jesus Jones’ “Right Here, Right Now.”)

    Peter Lawler
    September 10th, 2011 | 3:05 pm

    Germaine, You are exactly right and characteristically classy about the review. And about Carl, Pete, and the rest of the gang…

    Footnote
    September 14th, 2011 | 1:46 pm

    Any luck on the Canavan quote? I have not been able to find it.


Leave a Comment