LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
HELMS SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
“A Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction”
Book Review
Submitted to Dr. Scott Boykin
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
PLCY701-D03
Natural Law, The State, & The Gospel
by
Reagan Brackett
March 27, 2022
2
Introduction
Throughout history, philosophers have toyed with the concepts of natural law, debating
whether human beings are intrinsically aware of what is good. Some of these philosophers argue
that the theory of natural law cannot be universal because some individuals act in ways contrary
to the theory. While other philosophers argue that human beings do naturally know what is good,
yet do not expressly link this natural knowledge to a god or higher power. In Budziszewski’s
book, The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction, his
goal is to show that the theory of natural law is not only a theory but a fact. And because
Budziszewski is a Catholic Christian, his thoughts on natural law follow suit, stating human
beings have natural knowledge of good because of God. Dr. Budziszewski is a popular theorist
for the way in which he differs from other modern theorists in the same field, especially when it
comes to moral theory and ideas of equality and freedom (Seaton 2012). He is a professor at the
University of Texas in Austin and teaches in the departments of government and philosophy. He
is an author of many articles and books concerning ethics, political philosophy, religion, and
theology that have gained a lot of traction over the years. In the current piece of work being
reviewed here, Budziszewski looks at natural law through a philosophical lens and a political
lens, combining both of his fields of expertise. In doing this, he can examine the metaphysical as
well as some hot topics in the political arena involving “radical self-sovereignty (Budziszewski
2009, 139).” Budziszewski’s ability to isolate and link these two fields of study are one of the
reasons he is a popular author and theorist.
Plato and Natural Law
There are reminisce of a great ancient philosopher’s ideals throughout the book, The Line
through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction. That philosopher is
3
the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato. In the Republic Plato presents a series of
conversations between acquaintances where different aspects of philosophy are discussed, such
as, the concept of good. In these dialogues Plato does not insert himself into the conversations so
to discern what Plato’s own theory is, one must infer from the conversations by reading between
the lines, so to speak. Plato also never actually uses the term natural law, but he does frequently
discuss “nature” and “law” generally as two separate ideas that oppose each other. This is exactly
what is called into question within some of the dialogue of Plato’s work the Republic, using
justice. The first instance of this conversation is between Socrates and Callicles over their views
concerning what is “natural” or “naturally just” (Schofield 2000, 195). In this conversation,
Socrates argues that what is naturally just or right comes from the human goods which is the
goods of the soul (Plato 1892). The Sophists believed that right, wrong, justice, and injustice is
not what mattered, but Plato’s work suggests that is not the case and that justice, injustice, right,
wrong, and the good did matter (Schofield 2000). In Maguire’s interpretation of Plato’s work, he
understands the theory of natural law to be one “which posits a universally applicable criterion,
and a source of the moral validity of positive law and positive morality, independent of the
legislator in the case of law, and independent of society, in the case of the ‘unwritten laws’ of
conduct,” (Kelsen 1960, 27). This though is more of an idealistic theory of law rather than the
definition of natural law – however, idealistic is a theme throughout Plato’s work.
The Platonic dialogue is consistent with Budziszewski’s book concerning the thought that
natural law exists and is superior to man-made laws. In the conversation presented by Plato the
thinkers involved do concur that the natural good/just is and should be held higher than good/just
created by people (Plato 1892). This then translates to what Budziszewski claims too, that the
naturally just/good that is within every person is the best form of law.
4
Even though some of what Plato argues is echoed in Budziszewski’s book there are some
instances where the two disagree. For instance, Plato believes the natural good is within an
individual’s reasoning or intelligence – “The learner must look within and not conform to
external pressure for honor or gain; the learner must consider the truth and only giving assent of
the mind to evidence. What is learned is – in a way – already known,” (Hittinger 2017, 10).
Where on the other hand, Budziszewski would argue the natural good is just a part of one’s
nature and that an individual does not have to use their reasoning to discern what is good and bad
(Budziszewski 2009). Another way the two thinkers differ is that Plato’s work seems to suggest
that since the natural good is learned through human reason or intelligence then the laws should
be made by philosophers and thinkers because they are the only ones who are able to do so and
not allow society to corrupt their judgement. On the other hand, Budziszewski does not agree
with this line of thought. As mentioned before, Budziszewski does not think morality or natural
law can come from reason and/or intelligence (Budziszewski 2009). He also does not contend to
the idea that only a certain group of people are able to discern what is naturally just or good.
Budziszewski thinks everyone is inherently equipped with the awareness of what is good and can
therefore make their own decisions based on this awareness (Budziszewski 2009).
Aristotle and Natural Law
In a lot of ways, Budziszewski’s way of thinking is more similar to the ancient
philosopher, Aristotle. They both connect ethics and politics in their beliefs. However, when
Budziszewski (2009) takes the abstract concepts of natural law and directly links them to
subjects that are apart of individual’s lives, like religion and politics, this is where he differs from
the ancient philosophers. This is because Budziszewski’s thinking of natural law goes further
than Aristotle to include biblical provenance.
5
Though Aristotle is one of the prominent ancient philosophers and is sometimes referred
to as the father of natural law (though some would argue against this sentiment), his work
concerning natural justice or law can be difficult to interpret which can mean it is subject to
many different interpretations. His thoughts on natural law are ambiguous and even have
inconsistencies. Unlike other philosophers, Aristotle contends there are three types of justice
instead of just two: political justice, natural justice, and conventional justice (Roberts 2000).
Clearly, as seen through his works, Aristotle finds it important to understand whether a part of
justice is brought on by natural law or if it is a result of what society deems to be just. In his
works Aristotle holds that natural law is what gives each person a common knowledge of
morality and that this should be consistent throughout the universe and is therefore superior to
human-made decisions as law (Duke 2019). This does not mean that conventional justice is not
just, Aristotle does admit that some conventional justice is genuinely just “in the sense that it is
made just by seeming to be just or being agreed to be just,” (Roberts 2000, 346). In this way,
Aristotle thinks this genuinely just conventional justice is only so because it is subjective in the
final details (Roberts 2000). The natural law may require something of people but does not
specify every detail, and that is where conventional justice comes in with the citizens agreeing
what is just in the final details. But because of the inconsistencies conventional justice creates it
is considered to be below natural law and natural justice because it is consistent.
In the book The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of
Contradiction, Budziszewski uses some of Aristotle’s thoughts surrounding natural law.
Similarly, to Aristotle, he also holds that natural law is a necessary and uncontestable aspect of
society (Budziszewski 2009). That natural law is indeed a fact of life. He opposes the opinion
other philosophers and politicians that believe humans can and do set the moral standards by
6
creating our own nature. He refers to this as “judicial usurpation,” (Budziszewski 2009, 140).
Budziszewski goes on in his book to explain how he knows natural law is real and that this
concept is what keeps human beings on the track toward good by demonstrating how these
universal morals are inherently within all humans.
In trying to demonstrate how there is a moral code written in everyone, Budziszewski
(2009) starts by arguing against and dispelling claims that go against natural law. He contends
that regardless of what individual admits, they all are judged by their own conscience because
they intrinsically know that what they did violated the moral sense within them. Budziszewski
uses Thomas Nagel and his book The Last Word as proof of this (Budziszewski 2009). And he
comes to the conclusion that those who say God does not exist and that therefore there is no
divine set of universal morals are lying to themselves and at some level they are aware of it. In
The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction,
Budziszewski says, “The preposterous view that the atheist is not being honest with himself –
that he knows that there is a God, but only tells himself he doesn’t know – is looking better and
better,” (Budziszewski 2009, 34).
Cicero and Natural Law
In Cicero’s works, de Re Publica and de Legibus it is obvious that he holds much of the
same opinions and thoughts as the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato. In much the similar way to
Plato, Cicero also presents his work as dialogue between individuals who debate philosophical
question. The first mention of justice that is ‘natural’ is in a conversation where Philus argues
against the idea of natural law or justice. He makes the case that justice is either ‘natural’ or
‘civil’ by saying that natural justice would be unchanging and inherently within human beings,
yet there are examples of different legal systems all over (Atkins 2000, 18). Then Laelius
7
responds to this point of view by stating that to believe in the idea of ‘true law’ that would mean
there has to be other forms of law that are not the real natural law. This would then suggest that
natural law or justice does exist just inherently within human beings, who become corrupted by
society.
Unlike Plato, Cicero does put himself into the conversation in de Legibus where the
dialogue takes place in his family home and his own thoughts on natural law are seen (Atkins
2000, 22). In the first book within de Legibus, Cicero’s thoughts can be put into three points: (1)
certain gifts/duties are given to men by gods; (2) there is a single shared principle that men live
together; (3) a natural affection and resulting companionship of justice is shared by them (Atkins
2000, 23). Where Plato’s work suggest that natural law is in one’s intelligence and Budziszewski
suggests it is in one’s heart, Cicero holds that both of those theories are right. He theorizes that
true law is the development of the reason that exists within everyone at birth – that the way
humans know good from bad is given by nature, even from the gods, but humans are able to
access that knowledge through their mind (Atkins 2000).
Since this is the case, Budziszewski’s thoughts on natural law match more with Cicero
than with Plato. The reason Cicero’s theory differs from Budziszewski’s is because
Budziszewski does not agree with the idea that toleration is necessary, where Cicero’s theory
needs the toleration of secularism (Atkins 2000; Budziszewski 2009). Cicero also contends that
there is only one justice that exists when the “opponents” argue that there are as many justices as
there are communities with a code of behavior (Atkins 2000, 24; Legarre 2018, 886).
Budziszewski addresses this concept as well from opponents, that human beings create their
morals and what to enforce – but Budziszewski, like Cicero, holds that there is only one justice,
one true law (Budziszewski 2009).
8
However, where Budziszewski (2009) would argue, and does, that individuals should live
according to the natural, common good as to benefit the society as a whole and that natural good
should be legislated; Cicero does not hold this same belief. Cicero is more apprehensive to
suggest how people should live within a society (Asmis 2008). However, at the same time,
Cicero does contend that the state or country is indispensable to the working-out of justice
(Morgan 2019). Cicero also holds that the principles of justice come from the state and its laws.
This concept is more in line with Plato’s form of justice; however, Aristotle does not restrict
justice to solely a function of the existence of a state. In this sense, it seems like Budziszewski
would agree with Aristotle and not so much Cicero and Plato.
Conclusion
In Budziszewski’s book, The Line through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and
Sign of Contradiction, he expresses many ideas that line up with some of the most important and
well-known ancient philosophers. However, there are a lot of instances where he and the old
philosophers differ. Specifically in the aspect that religion and God is a necessary part of natural
law and how Budziszewski thought this was an important subject for both scholars and citizens –
all citizens. This author/professor does an exceptional job at providing alternative arguments
against those who oppose natural law theory.
It may be relative to point out, that though yes, Budziszewski does have common
thoughts on justice and good, his goal for the book is not to just add thoughts to the great
philosophers of the past or to add support to their claims. The goal of the book, The Line through
the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction, is to give an argument as to
how natural law is a fact and also to explain why this concept is important to not only the
scholars who are concerned with the subject but also everyday people.
9
Budziszewski (2009) does discuss natural law as a sign of contradiction which does
provide some answers to critiques. The concepts of natural law can be confusing, just as any
philosophical theory is, but the details of the theory should become clearer as the theory is
explained (McCormick 2017). Budziszewski would categorize this as “avoidable” scandal or
confusion (Budziszewski 2009). The “unavoidable” scandal for natural law would be the “we
don’t want to hear of natural law,” (McCormick 2017, 16: italicized in original). Therefore, the
source of the scandal of natural law is the mystery of evil. And Budziszewski shows that those
who claim they do not know God or believe good is naturally within all humans are just not
being honest with themselves (Budziszewski 2009).
And though ultimately, he presented a mind provoking and intriguing argument for
natural law with a Christian perspective and aspect to the concept and discuss the contradictions,
there is still a lot that Budziszewski (2009) does not address within his book. For example, the
analysis of legal and jurisprudential developments he presents need to evaluate the full picture –
more examinations need to be completed that focus exclusively on the developments in
constitutional law and legal theories. Another instance where I was not satisfied is in
Budziszewski’s (2009) discussion on toleration making links between defining an object, moral
evaluation, and setting the two in a religious perspective. This aspect needs to show a stronger
connection. It appears though that some of what Budziszewski presents in his book may be
influenced by the fact that he is a natural law and political thinker with his religious morals not
detached from the two which, consciously or subconsciously, plays a part in him leaving out or
downplaying areas that could give the opposing views greater context and content. All of that
considered, as previously mentioned, his argument does speak to people – especially non-
scholars – by reaching their mind and heart and though I would critically say some areas were
10
not all that they could or should have been this does not necessarily fully take away from what he
has been able to by making the readers intrigued and think more about the subject.
Public Policy Applications
The thought of the ancient philosophers and of Budziszewski can be used in many policy
areas. Three of the areas I will discuss here are abortion, racial equality, and market economy
policies. There are many other areas of policy that could use take-aways from this examination
of natural law, but these are the three I will focus on.
Regarding policy on abortion, the implications of the concept of natural law, as addressed
in Budziszewski’s book, are that it seems as though lawmakers think we can create our own
morality and that morals adjust overtime as people’s thinking evolves. However, as demonstrated
in The Line through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction,
Budziszewski argues that morals and the natural good intrinsically within all people does not
evolve or change. That human beings know within themselves what is good and bad, right and
wrong. But somehow, they try to convince themselves that things are different. Something
Budziszewski might point out is that the policy allowing abortion exists, yet there are also laws
created stating if someone were to kill someone who is pregnant, they could be charged with
double murder. This is a contradiction within the law and Budziszewski might explain this as a
way the guilt of the people was coming out, that the lawmakers intrinsically know a fetus is a
human being and killing a human being is wrong. With the concept of natural law being argued
as a fact, policy concerning abortion at the last need to match other policies that impose
punishments for killing a fetus. The morality of these policies do not match. They express
different moral codes through them.
11
With racial equality reform policies this may be a little different. If, as Budziszewski
claims in his book, natural law is a fact and is inherently within everyone, then it should be
known to treat everyone equal within the law. That people are not inherently different or less
than because of their race (or gender for that matter). I would argue that people should be able to
inherently know and therefore see that there are some policy areas that disproportionately affect
minorities and people of color. If this is known and can be understood, then there are changes
that need to be made and even a leg up in some areas because of the imbalance throughout the
years in the past. If natural law is what is good for society and promotes the common good, then
creating reform policies concerning racial equality should be an obvious solution.
The United States is generally considered to have a free market economy. This is an
unregulated system where government interventions are either few or do not exist. Natural law
contends that all people know within themselves what is good, however, the people in a society
can and do become corrupt. With this thinking, the government and lawmakers should regulate
the market to make sure corrupt people in the society are not taking advantage of or abusing
others. The concept of a free market is ideal, but people do not always do what is right or good or
just. And with the argument provided by Budziszewski, it would seem as though there should be
intervention and regulation of the market to make sure there are just and good practices
happening.
12
Bibliography:
Asmis, Elizabeth. “Cicero on Natural Law and the Laws of the State.”JClassical AntiquityJ27, no.
1 (2008): 1–33.
Atkins, E. M.J“Cicero.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought.
Edited by Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Budziszewski, J.JThe Line through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of
Contradiction. Wilmington, DE.: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009.
Duke, George. “Aristotle as Natural Law Theorist.” In Research Handbook on Natural Law
Theory, 13-30. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
Hittinger, John P. “Budziszewski on Natural Law, Conscience, and Atheism.”JThe Catholic
Social Science Review 22, (2017): 3–13.
Kelsen, Hans. “Plato and the Doctrine of Natural Law.” Vanderbilt Law Review 14,
no. 1 (1960): 23-64.
Legarre, Santiago. “The New Natural Law Reading of the Constitution.”JLouisiana Law
ReviewJ78, (2018): 878–905.
McCormick, William. “Budziszewski on the Natural Law as a ‘Sign of Contradiction.’”JThe
Catholic Social Science ReviewJ22, (2017): 15–25.
Morgan, Jason. “The State, Law, Religion, and Justice in Cicero’s The Republic and The Laws:
An Aristotelian-Thomistic Interpretation.”JStudia GilsonianaJ8, no. 3 (2019): 645–80.
Plato. The Dialogues of Plato. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. London: Humphrey
Milford: Oxford University Press, 1892.
Roberts, Jean. “Justice and the Polis.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political
Thought, edited by Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield, 344-65 The Cambridge
History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
13
Schofield, Malcolm. “Approaching the Republic.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman
Political Thought, edited by Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield. The Cambridge
History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Seaton, Paul. “A Review of ‘The Line through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign
of Contradiction.’”JPerspectives on Political ScienceJ41, no. 2 (2012): 106–15.
