“After the Natural Law: How the Classical Worldview Supports Our Modern Moral and Political
Views”
Book review
Fnu Bashirullah
Prof. Jesse Chupp, Liberty University
PLCY 701-D01
May 1, 2021
2
A review of “After the Natural Law: How the Classical Worldview Supports Our
Modern Moral and Political Views”
John Lawrence Hill is a law professor at Indiana University and adjunct professor of
philosophy at Purdue University in Indianapolis. In After the Natural Law, John Hill accounts the
natural law philosophies and argues that its return is essential for preserving our fundamental
western moral and political values. He highlighted human dignity, freedom, and man’s
responsibility in his work and how the ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas
viewed these topics. Hill’s arguments are embedded within the worldviews of ancient
philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas with a chronological account of the rise and decline
of those classical worldviews. Hill starts from Greek and Roman-era philosophy to the acme of
philosophy of Aquinas.
Hill argues that God is the creator and sustainer of all creatures, he describes the Classical
Worldview as the world that is “an ordered, purposeful and ultimately intelligible place” (14).
Hill argues that the God, the world, and the nature is the primary factors how this theological
principle informed such philosophical doctrines as natural law, virtue ethics, and a
metaphysically robust hylomorphic theory of the person. (Dousa 2016).
Hill acknowledges that Classical Worldview laid foundation of the objective
understanding of the natural law, ethics and morals but he also accepts that it allows man’s free
will. Hill shows how the Classical Worldview faded out as modernity era begun. He than
explains how the modern thinkers replaced theistic view of the ordered world with materialism in
which humans are believed to be determined by outside physical force instead of free will and
little human freedom. He argues that in philosophical materialism there’s no objective for moral
truth. Hill concludes his comparative analysis between Classical Worldview and modern
3
materialism with an argument that social values such as human dignity, freedom, and individual
responsibility are difficult to reconcile with the metaphysical assumptions of modern materialism
in its various forms. Hill suggests that Classical Worldview is superior over the modern
materialism.
Hill also argues that ethics without natural law tradition is turning the world into a chaos.
Natural law, according to him, is an idea that created order and establish a moral perimeter which
leads men to live a better life. He also says that everything has been created for a purpose and the
world is built on the truth (Thevasathan 2017). Hill references Aquinas idea of natural law. For
Aquinas, natural law is built inside human. Hills says we have moral template to build our
conscience, which Aquinas calls it synderesis. Aquinas also said human beings are inclined to the
natural law which is ordered to do good. Hills, in addition to the Aquinas ideas, also cites
Aristotle, Plato and Stoics for the natural law tradition.1 Hill when responding to the criticism,
says, its impossible to have all men in following the same tradition.
Hill argues that, natural law is not what we like to do, but natural law is what fulfill us as
human beings and it is about what we should do naturally, not what we desire. If one compares
Hill’s idea with Aquinas, both believe that our essence tells us what to do and how to live a good
life. They believe that natural law is imposed on human beings by God, and this law lead a
human for a good life and to have orderly world. Hill, as mentioned above also believe that
because human beings have free will, they can create disorder if natural law is violated.2
Hill provides an articulated defense of Classical Worldview against materialist-
deterministic worldview. He states that the notion of modern-day worldview for human dignity,
freedom and man’s responsibility is not coherent and comprehensive, as it is in ancient
1 Thevasathan 2017)
2 Ibid
4
worldview. He pushed the modern-day narrative and calls it ridiculous as he describes his book
as being “a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument for teleology—to show that if we reject
teleology, several powerfully unpalatable and counterintuitive conclusions about human nature
and morality follow” (79–80).
John Hill book is divided by two main parts. In first part he presents the ancient
philosophy and development of natural law tradition. He starts with Greece and ending with
Aquinas’ synthesis of Aristotle philosophy. While thee second part of the book details the decline
of natural law traditions and replaced with modernism. Hill sees this development through the
eyes of Rene Descartes, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes. He also writes about the implications
of rejecting the teleological worldview, with arguments of favoring teleology against materialist-
deterministic worldview.
In the first chapter he starts with posing Greek question; what the basic principle of
reality is? He discusses Epicurus. He says that pleasure is nothing but to avoid pain, for this one
must reduce desire and needs to maximize pleasure. Hill criticizes Epicurus and argues that this
was flawed and ultimately led to moral relativism resulting in the decline of materialism as a
philosophical worldview (29). Hills argues that teleological view is best alternative to the
materialism. This idea was first adopted by Plato and later developed by Stoics and Aristotle,
holding that everything has a known purpose of creation, an end, and fulfilment. He says
theology means that, “the end” to a thing leads us in a direction and help us to understand the
purpose of that thing, so we know what that thing really is. He also says “what” and “why” of a
thing cannot be separated from each other, which tells us about the purpose and reality about
everything. He says to discover what a thing does, we need to discover thing’s nature of form.
5
Hill says the modern man is an idiot savant and knows more about “How” a thing is
created but doesn’t know why it is created. He says classical philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle
and Aquinas believed that we can’t claim to know about a thing until we don’t know the purpose
of its creation. We first must know the “why” of that that thing is created. Hill brings an old
chinse proverb for this analogy says, “when the fingers point at the moon, the idiot looks at the
fingers.” (Feser 2008).
Hill divided Plato’s theology in two parts. He says Plato was more interested in the soul
of a body rather than the physical body, justice than how government is made, nature rather than
the physical shape of the world. Hill says, according to Plato the world is a moving shadow and
he was living to prepare for dying. Plato believed that everything has a form and an ordinary
object. Form, for Plato was the eternal and fundamental reality and knowledge. He says the
ordinary objects ends and change toward the perfection where objects turn into its real form,
which is good. (37–38). Hills agrees with Plato’s idea on the importance of forms and universals
of the thigs and says who rejects this reality loses the possibility of resemblance, sameness, laws
of science, and true communication (Mangino 2019). Hill brings Aristotle’s account of “change”
and divided it into three phases. First is substance, second is theory of causation, material, and
final causes. The final and formal causes can be associated with a substance’s form, explaining
its intrinsic organization and telos (43).3
Aristotle distinguish the substance of a thing from the properties. Aristotle gives the
Apple as an example, he says apple’s redness, roundness, sweetness are properties but not the
core thingness of the apple. Aristotle says the thingness of the apple is substance. Aristotle argues
that property fades away and changes over time, but substance is enduring. He says a man is
3 Ibid
6
immature in childhood, then turns as a mature person, changes in appearance and become old
and weak after an age, or a tree sprouts leaf in the spring, falling the leaf in fall, tree changes its
shape every season but the substance is enduring. That man and tree changes shapes but doesn’t
change the substance. Hill rejects materialist view as he supports Aristotle idea of things, that
“function determines structure not the other way around.” Hill says Aristotle meant Metaphysical
not physical in the evolutionary process.
We have evolved through a physical process, but this unfolds the form of humanness
which was implicate the order of world from its beginning. Hill says we should think about form
does not matter, because the form leads us back to understand God, because the form originates
in God’s mind (Gilson 1984). Hill, later, contradicts Aristotle’s view on matter and formal
causes. He cites “Metaphysical”, arguing that it’s important to understand that each thing is made
of form and matter and each thing has a formal and material cause. “The material cause is
internal and final causes are eternal” (McInerny 2004).
Hill, after Aristotle metaphysics, discusses eudaimonia. This idea is about one’s
flourishing is closely linked to the person’s end (47). For Aristotle, eudaimonia is through actions
that one is persuading in the life. This process takes place through virtues that requires
someone’s action in right manner, the right amount of virtue at the right time. eudaimonia is not
state of mind, its rather state of being of the virtuous. 4
Hill also describes the Stoics’ natural law tradition. He says Stoics contributed to three
main practices. First, for Stoics, the Logos are rationally ordering principle of the universe which
encompasses both the moral and physical laws. Second, Stoic introduced ethnical system that
4 Aristotle, the Nicomachean Ethics 1094
7
emphasized intention, he brings intention to the forefront of morality and moral life, and last, he
says Stoic contributed a lot to the tradition of moral duty (53).
Hill also discusses Aquinas’ synthesis of Christian and Greek philosophy. He says
Aquinas adopted most of the Aristotle’s metaphysics and ethnical work with some new
contribution such as essence and existence. Hill says Aquinas also grounds moral obligation ins
God’s spirit rather than rational. In addition to the Aristotle metaphorical and ethical framework,
Aquinas added that being and goodness is convertible. As Aristotle, Aquinas said its thing’s
active nature, its capacity that transmit forms and move to other things. He says being and
goodness is same in reference but distinguish in sense. The convertibility between being and
goodness is the center of natural law theory that that links “moral facts” and “moral oughts’”. He
says, according to Aquinas, goodness is being, and its opposite evil is no-being. Since evil has no
essence, the greater evil is nothing at all” (Stump 2003).
Later in this chapter, Hill also discussed an objection to the teleology and natural law
theory which says that “ought” can never be derived from “is”. This objection is called
metaphysical objection, which was first made by David Hume, but Hill refutes it with two
method; first, he argues that teleology is important because without teleology its most likely
possible to lead us to absurd conclusions (78–81). Second, he argues if we do not follow
metaphysically bases teleology, we can instead use practical reasoning and basic goods as a new
natural law theory (Mangino 2019).
Hill, on the knowledge of form, argues that it is the logos that connects world of mind
with the world of things and established the rational order of the world, and without the logos
there would be nothing for the men and everything will be chaotic. Similarly, Plato, Aristotle
believed that knowledge is knowledge of form, not matter. The mind knows each thing by
8
knowing thing’s form, and form can be communicated materially. Aristotle also held that matter
cannot be understood but perceived and on the other side the form can be understood but not
perceived.
On the theory of knowledge, Aristotle held that matter can be seen or sensed, he give an
example of tree, as matter that is sensing (feeling, seeing) but he used essence for the form which
is also known as intellect. Aquinas held the theory of knowledge through Christological lens.
Aquinas referred to Gospel of John and refers Jesus as the logos. He held that “the primordial
intelligibility of the order of things, is the basic principle that everything is created in its own
natural order.” 5 Hill also put forth a moderate classical view of a man between materialist and
dualist extremes. He supports hylomorphic theory that a person’s soul is the form and the body
are substance. This theory also accounts the unit and moral status of people (86). On the moral
realism, Aristotle, Plato, Augustin, and Aquinas have defended in some parts, but modern
philosopher divided moral realism in three types: virtue ethics, consequentialism, and
deontology.
On the first theory, virtue ethics, Aristotle held that virtue and character of actor is the
base for morality. He says if a person is acting a well-form character, he will have a happy and
good life. On the second type of moral realism, the consequentialism theories, de-emphasize the
character of the actor but rather focus on the consequence of the action as primary base for
morality. If an apparent consequence of an action is beneficial, the act is moral. On the other side
if consequence of an act is harmful, the act is immoral. The deontology type of moral realism
rejects both the character of the actor and consequence of the act.
5 Jn 1:1:5
9
For deontology theory, Hill used Emmanuel Kant6 theory that focusses the intention of
the action rather than virtue of the actor or consequence of the act. This theory held that if an
actor’s intent is good, the act is right, and if the actor’s intention is bad the action is not right or
moral.
Hill divides personal moral psychology into three parts. 1) first is human beings are
fundamentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong. 2) choices are customized to every
person and its self-constituting; it means a person has its personal reflection on a choice and
decision to make. 3) the virtues are integral force that contribute to drive a human toward right or
wrong, making choices and decisions (109).
Part 2 of this book include how the classical worldview declined. In this discussion he
analysis four modern thinkers: Hobbes, Locke, Descartes, and Ockham. He takes on Ockham’s
denial of universals, which leads to voluntarist’s conception, a believe that accepts the ability in a
person to know and do a good thing (124).
He also analysis Descartes, who’s also known as the father of rationalism. Descartes turns
the order of thing which prioritize epistemology over metaphysics. Locke, believes in radical
empiricism, doesn’t accept that a person knows about things innate, also denying a person’s
knowledge about good. He says each person has different knowledge individually about things
and particularly knowledge of the good. Hobbes, according to Hill, rejects all classical
philosophies and notions of substance, truth, essence, and final causation. He takes a very securer
approach, believes on voluntarist ethic based on the social contract (141). He declines spiritual
soul into secular self which leads to materialism and idealism.
6 Kant, Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
10
Later, Hill makes argument on the “doing without free will”, that any form of materialism
involves determinism and rejects free choice. He says there are four possibilities in free will vs
determinism: compatibilism, hard determinism, indeterminism, and metaphysical libertarianism
(183). Hill says, except metaphysical libertarianism, all other three form of materialism deny the
reality of fee choice, which ultimately undermines the concept of moral responsibility and leads
to unacceptable consequences.
According to St. Augustine, the free will is distinct from desire and reason. He wrote that
a person has two opposing powers: 1) a principle of goodness, light, and order and, 2) a principle
of evil, darkness and chaos. This cataclysmic conflict between good and evil go through the
center of a human personality. Augustine said, the soul was made for the principle of good and
order and the body was made for the evil and disorder. The objective of the human personality
should be “to escape the bondage of the body”. Augustine says it was his “will” not “intellect”
-the deeper moral conflict within – that prevented him from a good way of before becoming
Christian.7 Plato, Aristotle and Augustine all believed that it’s the “will” of a true captain of the
ship of soul not the “reason”. They argued that the will is a power that stands above the flux of
desires, appetite, and passion, and that’s the reason that guide them. Augustine also believed that
the power of “will” and “reason” operate in a reflexive manner. 8 Hooker and Luther also held
that God has given the human ability and choice to choose good over evil. He said God designed
man to depend on their natural reason; however, because of corruption, some men are unable to
follow the principles of natural law. Aquinas, Luther, and Hooker have all emphasized that a
person have both rationality and free will (Thompson 1969).
7 Rom 13:13-14; Augustine, Confessions 8.8-12.
8 Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will 2.19
11
Hill also explains the similarities between Hooker, Aquinas, and Luther, as they held on
universal truth, which is part of natural law. They also believed that God is the planner of
everything and man being part of nature, man is inherent with natural law which helps them
distinguish good from evil. Hill also says that Hooker links the will of God for the sorting out
everything a man does. According to Hooker, “Natural laws direct in such sort, that in all things
we must for ever do according unto them; Positive so, that against them in no case we may do
anything, as long as the will of God is that they should remain in force” (Hooker 1845).
Hill says, in the notion of responsibility and punishment, this rejects the classical
philosophy that one must be held accountable and justly punished for her or his action because of
free choice. Hill also points that without free will a person still get punishment not for her or his
responsibility sense in a result of free choice, but the person was beneficial in utilitarian sense.
Hill, on chapter 9 and 10 discusses the moral and political ideals, he says we have lost the
foundations for both moral and political principles. Hill argues that we can’t have full freedom,
responsibility, and human dignity if we accept a world of materialism and determinism. He says
that the liberal values also benefit a person in a positive way, but those values still depend on
teleological foundation, which he thinks was not more prominent in classical natural law
tradition (243). Hill also brings Aquinas’s philosophy on moral principles. For Aquinas, he held
that a person is moved by desire and love before him or her, not pushed by the plethora of
deterministic causes. Hill also argues that a human act must be understood within the framework
of Aristotle four causes: materialistic cause, efficient cause, formal cause, and final cause. For
Aristotle, when a person deliberately uses the power of “will” for a decision, that’s an efficient
cause of the action. 9
9 Aristotle, the Nicomachean Ethics 6.2.1129 a 32
12
The formal cause is the need, desire, and disposition of human being, that driving them
toward achieving the telos, the formal end. The material causes are the physical means that help
us achieve the end. The final end is the cause that mutative a person to achieve it. Hill explain
these four causes in an example; He says for a person to prepare a meal; the hunger (as a formal
cause in shape of appetite or need) causes to envision a human something to eat (final cause),
this motivate hm or her to prepare the (efficient cause) food (materialistic cause). According to
Aquinas, “we intend the end, but we choose the means to achieve our end” (Long, 2007).
Hill says that these values – including the liberal values – founded on teleology, and
teleology depends on the existing of God. He also argues that every philosophy admits God’s
existence, but the philosophers don’t accept this reality, and some of them do.
If one summarizes Hill’s arguments, it seems that for us to accept the significant of
freedom, human dignity, and responsibility, we need to accept the reality of key beliefs of
classical worldview which ultimately proves the existence of God. The book is well organized
with rich materials and easy to understand arguments for a comparative analysis of classical
worldview and modern secular beliefs. Hill does not use Luther, Calvin, and Hooker in his work,
he though significantly cites Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Stoic.
13
Bibliography:
Aristotle. “The Nicomachean Ethics.” Oxford: Oxford University Press USA - OSO, 2009.
Accessed April 28, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Aquinas. “Summa Theologiae.” Trs. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. (Benziger
Bros. edition, 1947).
Dousa, Thomas M. “After the Natural Law: How the Classical Worldview Supports Our Modern
Moral and Political Values by John Lawrence Hill.” Catholic Library World. Vo. 87, no.
2 (2016): 134
Feser, Edward. "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism." (South Bend Ind. St.
Augustine's Press, 2008), 267.
Gilson, Etienne, and John Lyon. “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final
Causality, Species, and Evolution” Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.
Accessed April 28, 2021.
Hooker, Richard, Izaak Walton, John Keble, and Walter Travers. “The Works of That Learned
and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker : with an Account of His Life and Death Third
edition.” Oxford: The University press, 1845.
Kant, Immanuel. “Critique of the Power of Judgment.” Edited by Paul Guyer. Translated by Eric
Matthews. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Long, Steven. “The Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act.” (Naples Fla.: Sapientia Press,
2007).
Mangino, Dominic. “After the Natural Law: How the Classical Worldview Supports Our
Modern Moral and Political Values by John Lawrence Hill.” The national Catholic
bioethics quarterly. 19, no. 3 (2019): 502–505.
McInerny, D. Q. “Metaphysics.” Elmhurst, Pa.: Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, 2004.
Stump, Eleonore. “Aquinas.” London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. Accessed April 28, 2021.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Thevasathan, Pravin. “After the Natural Law: How the Classical Worldview Supports Our
Modern Moral and Political Values by John Lawrence Hill.” Catholic Medical Quarterly
Volume 67(1) February 2017.
Thompson, W. D. J. Cargill, “The ‘Two Kingdoms’ and the ‘Two Regiments’: Some Problems of
Luther’s Zwei-Reiche-Lehre”, The Journal of Theological Studies, 20(1): 164–185. 1969
