Religion & Law

... about which I've written at length elsewhere.  You've asked about my position.  Here's a sketch:

1.  Why is it the case--if indeed it is the case--that each and every human being has inherent dignity and is inviolable?  In my judgment, secular (non-theological) thought lacks the resources to give an adequate answer to that question.

2.  Given that every human being has inherent dignity and is inviolable, we should value what's good for any human being--good for him or her in the sense of conducive to or constitutive of his or her flourishing as human beings, his or her eudaimonia--and we should disvalue what's bad for any human being--bad for him or her in the sense of conducive to or constitutive of his or her withering.  (Serious problems obviously arise--not least, political-moral problems--when what's good for one or more human beings is bad, directly or indirectly, for one or more other human beings.)  So, what *is* good for (some or all) human beings--and what *is* bad for them?  In my judgment, theology qua theology--qua theo-logos--cannot answer that question.  What can answer it?  That's where the natural-law approach kicks in, an approach that, properly understood, relies on and brings to bear all of the relevant parts of human knowledge.  And the relevant parts of human knowledge, of course, are not static.

Now, I've got to start grading some exams!