ABSTRACT
John Finnis’s work on natural law ethics (developed and refined with the help of several key collaborators, most notably Germain Grisez and Joseph Boyle), over the past three decades, has been a source of controversy (both meta-ethical and normative) in neo-Thomist circles.1 In analytical circles too, especially in analytical jurisprudence, his work has also been a source of controversy. (I am not here alluding to populist controversies that have resulted from the use of some of his arguments in the “public square” on the topics of abortion, homosexuality, coitus, and so on, although they too are phenomena that stem from the broad reach of his discourse.)
Finnis’s work is oftentimes a genuinely interesting source of controversy because he is a thinker who has challenged a common key assumption of both neoThomism and Analytical Philosophy, namely, that a natural law ethics (at least one worthy of being called such) must be based on an appeal to some form of ethical naturalism – that natural law is, at bottom, an ethics that seeks to derive or infer normative “ought” type statements from descriptive “is” type statements. Coming to terms with the nature of Finnis’s work has been a challenge for scholars from different philosophical traditions because his own writing has drawn from a variety of different sources and influences. He has, for example, used many insights drawn from or inspired by Aquinas to challenge some of the neo-orthodoxies of contemporary moral philosophy, especially its enduring infatuation with different forms of emotivism or subjectivism. On the other hand, Finnis’s work has also been influenced by the weave of meta-ethical discourse arising out of twentieth-century analytical philosophy.2
