After the Natural Law: How the Classical Worldview Supports Our Modern Moral and
Political Views by Dr. John Lawrence Hill, was written as an introduction to natural law. Dr. Hill
stands firm in his idea that ethics without the help of natural law tradition can lead to chaos. The
book begins with Dr. Hill introducing how Western Philosophy started, which was by
questioning change, reality, and substance. He states that this led to what would become “the
two sides of philosophy; mind and matter. Mind was described by Anaxagoras as limitless and
was the first genuinely philosophical intuition of God in Western thought.” (Hill, 2016).
With that being said, materialism was on the other end. This was defined as the
accidental result of natural causes. Looking from a political point of view, materialism is the
exact opposite of natural law. Aristotle taught that “society is the natural expression of us and
that it gives us our second nature" (Hill, 2016), while some people felt like there was nothing
authentic about the state. Dr. Hill goes on to explain that during the Christian era Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle began to make sense of the differing ideas between substance and process, which
in a way created Christian natural law.
In chapter two, Dr. Hill discusses the Classical Worldview that came before Christianity.
Classical thinkers believed that there is no way to claim anything without understanding its
purpose, which is referred to as teleology. Dr. Hill explains that Plato was the creator of the
teleological worldview. Plato believed that everything had a goal that was determined to be
perfect. By knowing the goal of something “you are able to know its form of perfection and in
turn understand what that thing truly is" (Hill, 2016).
Dr. Hill goes on to talk about Plato’s start in philosophy and his worry for the inner self,
change, and justice. Plato’s ideas were further passed on by Aristotle. Hill states that Aristotles’s
biggest contribution to philosophy was the “naturalized teleology-to recast Plato’s teleological
idealism in more natural, scientific terms” (Hill, 2016). Aristotle believed that form and matter
went together. He also distinguished substance, which is the center of gravity for things.
Dr. Hill also explained how Aristotle took a abstract view. As an example, Aristotle
would clarify that man was born with hands to have the intellect to use them, because just
having hands was a random coincendence that happened first. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and other
pre-Christian thinkers steadily held that there for basic virtues. These are “prudence, fortitude,
temperance, and justice. Prudence is the capacity to judge rightly the appropriateness of an
action under the circumstances; fortitude, or courage, is the ability to maintain one's
commitments in difficult circumstances; temperance is self-control and moderation in acting,
and justice is given each person his due” (Hill, 2016). These virtues will be the topics of all-
natural law thinkers.
The chapter goes on to discuss how the Stoics were the roots of natural law. As the first
stoic, Zeno, thought that the universe was animate, wise, and good. He believed that all things
“were ordered by Providence, and at the end of life was to live in accordance with this order,
which is the same with nature and reason” (Hill, 2016). Stoics believed that God was one and
the same with the physical. They believed that the natural world was a part of God in a never
ending cycle of creation and destruction. This idea supports materialism and that everything,
including God, was physical in nature. This then leads to the conversation on natural law.
Dr. Hill stated that Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics all contributed to the natural
law theory. However, he states that Aquinas took the ideas of these different philosophers
and then advanced the thoughts. Aquinas accepted much of Aristotle's claims such as
“metaphysics, substantial form, formal and final causes, moderate realism, and the view
that universals exist as the essence of popular things” (Hill, 2016). Aquinas described
natural law as something that is within every one of us.
Aquinas distinguished four kinds of law; eternal law, divine law, national law, and
human law. Eternal law comes from God and includes all of his doing, as well as divine
law. Divine law is significant because it is any law to be aimed towards the common
good. Natural law is the theory of eternal law being influenced by humans. Human law,
which variates over time and circumstance, is the reason while the objective is good.
Augustine supported the idea that unfair human laws were not laws at all. This shows
that in order for a law to be human law, it must support good and justice.
After defining natural law, Dr. Hill debates how moral duty fits into natural law.
Teleological theories of ethics, such as Aristotle’s, are sometimes disapproved for lacking
a theory of moral responsibility (Hill, 2016). However, according to Aquinas, ethics
fulfill God’s eternal law. Dr. Hill goes on to question not only what is good or bad, but
why one chooses to do good or bad. He uses Plato's questioning of what makes certain
acts good to answer this. Plato said, “Good and bad acts are such by their very nature;
they are fixed for all time, and we can reason about them even without knowing God's
will on every subject” (Hill, 2016). Plato basically stated that God instructs us to do good
deeds because they are good
Genesis 18:19 states "For I know him, that he will command his children and his
household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;
that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18:19)
This supports the view that God orders us to do good deeds because they are good.
Aquinas stated that we partake in God’s reason. Because God is above all reasonable, we
know morality through reason. Aquinas got his views from Christianity and is supported by
the groundwork of his view of being God.
In his book, Dr. Hill included some of the critiques of natural law theory: the
anthropological objection, the metaphysical objection, and the liberal objection. The
anthropological objection questions how natural law exists, yet everyone has different
beliefs and movements. Dr. Hill’s answer to this was the fact that natural law is flexible. Is
more about knowing than doing. Natural law must familiarize itself to different social and
cultural situations, and the unreliability and corruptibility of human judgments (Hill, 2016).
The metaphysical objection is that natural law depends on teleology. Without teleology,
nature cannot be the structure for moral perception. Dr. Hill states “if nature is random and
accidental, as the materialists claim, perhaps you can ignore nature or even change it”
(Hill, 2016).
To me, this was an interesting debate to hear because from what we know now, it
does not seem like we can change nature. However, with things like global warming, the
view changes to the fact that we can affect nature. The liberal objection to natural law theory
claims that natural law will eventually lead to an anti-liberal outset of life and society. In
response to this, Aquinas and other natural law philosophers stated that it is risky to go
against the course of human nature, as this can change the result for so many more things.
In the second part of the book, Dr. Hill explains how natural law is decreasing. Dr.
Hill uses four major philosophers to explain his theory; William of Ockham, Rene Descartes,
John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes. Ockham is best known for his “attack on the Aristotelian
system on which Aquinas based his theory of natural law” (Hill, 2016). He believed that
only individuals exist and that people do not share a general purpose. This view completely
rejects natural law.
Descartes' view is that the mind is detached from the body. He believed that people
can comprehend human knowledge before we learn how the world works. This was a
completely different approach than Aristotle and Aquinas. Descartes divided the world into
two distinct elements: the material world and the freethinking mind. John Locke upheld not
only that all information comes through the senses, but “there are no inborn structures of
human understanding that precede and mediate our experience of the world” (Hill, 2016)
This view also is a direct disagreement with natural law.
Thomas Hobbes was thought to be one of the first modern materialists. To Hobbes,
the human condition was “everyone against everyone, in which self-interested individuals,
driven by the fear of death in the quest for security and power, clash in a world of limited
resources. Human behavior is driven by passion, not reason” (Hill, 2016). Hobbes denied the
teleological worldview and felt that philosophy only relates to the physical world. In his
book, Dr. Hill explained just how these founders denied natural law, each in their own way.
As religious tradition and natural law started to decline, moral relativism became the
new way of thinking. David Hume took the opportunity to introduce empiricism. He argued
that we have honest knowledge of only one thing and that is our immediate perceptions
experienced by our senses” (Hill, 2016). Hume did not think that there was any deeper sense
and that if material things needed to go, then mental reality does to. In chapter six, Dr. Hill
introduced another philosopher, Immanuel Kant. To Dr. Hill, Kant was the last major
philosopher to “refuse to relinquish God, freedom, and immortality, yet as a philosopher, he
was supremely sympathetic to the skepticism of the age” (Hill, 2016).
Immanuel Kant believed that all actions have specific intentions. However, those
intentions are not specifically linked to a moral code. While he argued with classical thinkers
that men “possess reason and capacity for freedom, Kant concluded that there is no human
nature: we possess no essence, no telos and, crucially, no built-in ends to guide our lives”
(Hill, 2016). Due to this separation, Dr. Hill stated that this caused a disturbance in the
foundation of moral-political values, such as liberty, accountability, and human dignity.
Without the substantial self, “modern thought has been unable to make sense of these values”
(Hill, 2016).
Dr. Hill further talks about three issues that put these values at risk: hard determinism,
soft determinism, and indeterminism. Interdeterminists believe that nature “operates with a
degree of randomness, that the iron law of cause and effect is not an accurate picture of
reality” (Hill, 2016). The idea is that since nature is random, it should leave room for free
will. However, some believe that the idea of an accidental act is not the same as a free act.
Hard determinists believe that the concept of free will is not there and that everything is
going to happen exactly as it should happen. Looking at punishment as an example, hard
determinists would want to treat these individuals, not punish them. They would believe that
in the end, they do not hold responsibility for their action. Soft determinism is a view that
determinism is valid, but we still act as if we have free will.
Each of these three views denies free will. Free will is not something found in a
determinist view. Determinism is the idea that one’s actions are determined by causes outside
of one’s will and therefore, one cannot be held responsible for those actions. Dr. Hill states
that “whereas the concepts of duress and necessity affect the volitional prong of
responsibility even where the will is otherwise free, determinism may entail that no act is
free in the sense that seems to be required for persons to be responsible” (Hill, 2016).
Without this accountability, it is hard to have pride as a human. Dr. Hill suggests that free
will is significant to maintaining these values and a teleological view.
The traditional idea of punishment is corrective. Its emphasis is on deterrence,
rehabilitation, and focuses on a positive change for the person and the society. However,
modern ideas of punishment are more practical in that they focus on punishment as a way of
social reform. This is seen in the materialist view and is used as a way to further social
objectives, instead of the development of that individual. This can backfire and in addition it
can really damage a society. Dr. Hill explains that redefining freedom and accountability can
change the entire sense of other values, such as liberty, human rights, and equality.
In his last chapter, Dr. Hill discusses freedom, responsibility, and human dignity. He
also settles the thought that values cannot make sense outside of a teleological view and that
divine order is needed to uphold morals. He states that freedom “is linked to political liberty
and to our understanding of human rights. Responsibility is connected to our ideas of merit,
remorse, forgiveness, and mercy. Human dignity, finally, undergirds our commitments to
equality and the sanctity of human life” (Hill, 2016). With this being said, the lack of natural
law would create a chain of events that could result in values being lost as well, which will
then in turn affect our politics.
While the main idea of the book is how natural law is essential, it would have been
more helpful if Dr. Hill included more religions. Although he did discuss Buddhism and
Hinduism, it had a very short presence. This book did spark my curiosity to research if any
other religions support the natural law theory and their reasons for supporting it or rejecting
it. Overall, the book did an excellent job at linking the history of the natural law worldview
and reexamining the teleological view. It also makes you think about what reality is, the
reason human beings were put on this earth, and how both of those affect morals and
political views.
