A 20th Century

Restatement of the
Natural Law

John N. Finnis
John M. Finnis, internationally recognized as one of the late-20th
century’s leading moral philosophers and the world’s leading
natural-law theorist, joined the Notre Dame Law School faculty in
1995. He earned his LL.B. from Adelaide University (Australia) in
1961 and his Ph.D. from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar in
1965. Currently, Notre Dame shares Professor Finnis with Oxford
University, where he has held the positions of lecturer, reader and a
chaired professor in law for over three decades. In addition, he has
served as associate in law at the University of California at Berkeley
(1965-66), as professor of law at the University of Malawi (Africa)
 II.1 Natural law and theories of natural
law
♦Basic assumptions:
♦There is a set of basic practical principles which
indicate the basic forms of human flourishing as
goods to be pursued and realized which are used by
everyone in one way or another regardless of the
soundness of his conclusions
♦There is a set of basic methodological
requirements of practical reasonableness which
distinguish sound from unsound practical thinking
and which provide the criteria for distinguishing
between that which is reasonable all things
considered and unreasonable
♦These assumptions allow the
formulation of a set of general moral
 Distinctions and Limitations

♦There is a difference between

♦A theory, doctrine, or account and
♦The subject matter of that theory, doctrine, or
account.
♦The natural law itself has no history,
although there is a history of opinions
about the natural law.
♦The distinction between a discourse
about natural law, and a discourse about
natural law doctrine(s) must be
maintained.
♦Finnis’ work is about natural law and
 III.I Example of a Basic Form of Good
♦Distinguish (Knowledge)
between:
♦Knowledge sought for its own sake, and
♦As an instrument in the pursuit of some other
objective.
♦Knowledge and belief are different.
♦Belief may be a true belief or a false belief
♦Knowledge is of truth, and is therefore an
achievement-word.
♦Thus seeking after knowledge is to
seek after truth.
♦Truth is not a mysterious abstract
entity, rather it is what we need to know
in order to make rational judgments.
 III.4 That Knowledge is Good is Self-
Evident
♦The good of knowledge is self-evident;
it cannot be demonstrated, but equally
needs no demonstration as it is obvious
to all.
♦The value (goodness) of truth
(knowledge) is not innate, but is learned
from attempting to satisfy curiosity with
correct answers, and understanding the
differences between true and false
answers.
 IV.1 Theoretical Studies of Other Basic
Values
♦Problems with current literature
(thought)
♦Arbitrary & implausible reductions of many basic
values to one or two or ?
♦Creation of incoherent lists of basic values based
on shifting criteria
♦Insufficient analysis of the proposed basic values
or tendencies.
♦To overcome such problems, recall the
distinction:
♦Between an urge (instinct?) and the good which
can be realized by fulfilling it.
♦Between the material conditions for pursuit of
 IV.2 & IV.3 The Basic Forms of Good (by
♦Life Finnis)
♦Self-preservation
♦Health (mental & physical)
♦Procreation (in the sense of simple transmission
of life)
♦Knowledge (for its own sake, not
instrumentally)
♦Play (a performance done simply for
its own sake)
♦Aesthetic Experience (beauty)
♦Sociability (friendship)
♦Practical Reasonableness (freedom,
intelligence, reasonable order, external
 VI.8 The Common Good
♦Not utilitarian “greatest good for
greatest number.”
♦Kinds of “Common Good”
♦Factors: A set of factors which create voluntary
cooperation between persons in the community,
each to achieve their own goals.
♦Human:
♦There is a common good insofar as
achieving the basic goods of life are good for
any and every person.
♦Each of the basic goods are a common
good insofar as they can be participated in
by infinite people in infinite ways or on an
infinite variety of occasions.
 X.1 Law & Coercion
♦The claim of law & legal systems to
the authority to direct, validate, or
prohibit human activity is implausible
unless the subjects believe that
compliance will not leave them subject to
danger of internal or external assaults or
depredations.
♦The authority of the law depends on:
♦Its justice, or
♦Its ability to secure justice (sometimes by force).
♦Effectiveness does not necessarily
equate to Justice.
♦The need for legal coercion may lie in:
 X.1 Law & Coercion (cont.)
♦Lawful coercion may be by way of:
♦Self-defense, self-help, civil judicial processes and
the like, or
♦Criminal sanctions (punishment)
♦The justifying objective of the criminal
law is to see that certain acts or
omissions occur less frequently than
they otherwise would.
♦Almost every member of society must
be taught the requirements of the law,
and the most effective way to do so is by
the drama of apprehension, trial, and
punishment of lawbreakers.
 X.1 Law & Coercion (cont.)
♦Punishment, then, seeks to restore
the distributively just balance of
advantages between the criminal and the
law-abiding.
♦Punishment restores fairness by
depriving the criminal of the gain of his
criminal act - his exercise of free-will to
the detriment of the community
♦There is no absolute measure of just
punishment
♦One who acts criminally harms the
community and himself
♦Punitive sanctions, therefore, should