Robert p george biography

By contrast with consequentialism, New Natural Law theory holds that the basic goods for which we act are in certain key respects incommensurable—incapable of being summed, netted, and compared along a single scale of value. It is about promoting but also always respecting i. Yet New Natural Law theory also differs from the second set of views familiar to academics today, which likewise yields moral absolutes.

Deontological theories focus on principles for action that make no reference to substantive goods. Kant , for instance, posited that we should act only on those principles that we can consistently will for everyone to adopt. Murder is wrong, on this view, because it flouts that basic requirement of formal consistency : killing to achieve some end, and willing that others do the same, would be self-defeating.

Unlike deontology, New Natural Law theory sees morality regarding murder or anything else as a matter of our proper concern for the good. It derives moral norms like that against murder by applying these implications to all the basic human goods to which reason directs us. These include, according to New Natural Law theory, knowledge, life and health, aesthetic experience and skillful performances of various types, inner peace or personal integration, friendship, religion, and marriage, the latter defined as a relationship between oneself and someone to whom one commits in the kind of all-encompassing union inherently apt for procreation and family life.

Against subjectivists, he affirms that certain conditions can be good for us, whatever our subjective attitudes. Finally, against the same Neo-Scholastics—who like Aristotle consider theoretical contemplation the highest good—he argues that the basic goods as they figure in options for morally significant choice are incommensurable in value.

These are based on his view of law as creating the conditions under which individuals and private communities can pursue and realize human goods for themselves. Unlike some positivists, who think law has no important conceptual connection to morality, George defines laws and other social institutions with reference to their end. For George, unjust laws are real but watered-down cases of law, as they fail to serve the purpose that justifies having law at all.

By implication, just laws embody the natural law more or less directly. And we can best account for their paradigmatic features only from the internal perspective of those who support and obey them for the sake of the common good. He grants that law cannot and should not try to promote all the virtues or ban every vice. But if the proper end of law is human flourishing, those making law should surely take moral truth into account.

Likewise, George affirms the legitimacy of invoking controversial moral and religious views in policy debates. John Rawls argued that fairness requires citizens and lawmakers in pluralistic societies to refrain from settling constitutional essentials based on principles they cannot reasonably expect fellow citizens to accept. Natural law principles, he argues, are accessible to rational beings as such and are therefore public in the crucial sense.

Robert p george biography

On similar grounds, in an essay in his book Conscience and Its Enemies , George rebuts the arguments of politicians most famously, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo who profess personal moral opposition to abortion while supporting legal access to it. Indeed, George thinks, the state may subject to prudential limits promote the human good even by means of morals laws that ban immoral acts in order to discourage vices.

On this and other grounds, he argues that morals laws are not unjust in principle—against several contemporary liberal arguments. Beyond making these general points about the nature, scope, and proper grounds of law and politics, George has employed New Natural Law theory to advance influential arguments on matters of life and death embryo-destructive research, abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment , sex and marriage, and rights of conscience and religious liberty.

George and Lee argue that conceptual thought and free choice are performable only by creatures with an immaterial aspect, a soul that reflects our rational nature. This grounds our dignity, and the wrong of intentionally harming us. But we are not just souls that inhabit bodies. They argue that we are also our bodies. Bodies are parts of us as persons, not just our instruments.

We come to be when our organism does, ceasing to be only when it dies. It follows, George and Lee argue, that to intend to kill a human embryo or fetus, the elderly, senile or handicapped, or even criminals convicted of capital offenses, is to intend basic harm to a human person—a rights-bearer. Defenses of these practices, they argue, must implicitly deny the equality of human persons, embrace an untenable body-self dualism, or both.

For a wider audience, George applies this argument to human embryos, with a careful review of the relevant developmental biology, in Embryo: A Defense of Human Life , coauthored with Christopher Tollefsen. Alone and with coauthors, he has also defended pro-life positions against various objections in a number of essays. Wikimedia Commons Wikiquote Wikidata item.

American legal scholar and political philosopher born Morgantown, West Virginia , U. Bush George W. Duke Power Co. Higher ed. Think tanks. Other organizations. Early life and education [ edit ]. Academic career [ edit ]. Cornel West [ edit ]. Political activity [ edit ]. Other professional and public service activities [ edit ]. This section needs to be updated.

The reason given is: board memberships are from , may not be true in Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. September Reception [ edit ]. Honors [ edit ]. Musical activity [ edit ]. Works [ edit ]. Books [ edit ]. References [ edit ]. Pepperdine University. March 15, Archived from the original on June 8, Retrieved June 8, Archived from the original on September 27, Retrieved September 27, December 20, The New York Times.

Archived from the original on April 28, Retrieved June 27, Retrieved January 18, Program in Law and Public Affairs. Princeton University. Archived from the original on September 22, Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. Retrieved June 3, George receives degrees of Doctor of Civil Law D. James Madison Program. Archived from the original on May 9, Retrieved December 15, George receives Doctor of Letters D.

George Princeton Politics". Retrieved April 10, Archived from the original on January 6, Retrieved November 3, Archived from the original on July 21, December 16, ISSN The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 18, George, Cornel West, and Humanitas". National Review. Boulder Daily Camera. George and Cornel West".

Archived from the original on May 24, Retrieved May 29, — via Princeton University. George and Cornel West' ". Washington Post. Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on May 12, Cornel West and Dr. Robert George". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on September 2, January 21, Princeton Alumni Weekly. Retrieved July 25, July 9, Public Discourse.

Archived from the original on March 11, Retrieved May 29, Robert P. Archived from the original on March 25, Retrieved March 19, New York Daily News. Archived from the original on September 20, Catholic News Agency. New York, NY. October 4, Retrieved July 21, Religion News. Retrieved December 20, July 19, National Catholic Register. Archived from the original on February 27, Retrieved February 23, The Witherspoon Institute.

Archived from the original on September 16, Retrieved September 23, Ethics and Public Policy Center. Archived from the original on September 1, Retrieved September 30,