Is there anyone writing today who is better than J. Budziszewski (bud-i-shef'-ski) at explaining to a philosophically untrained audience what natural law is and how it applies? Witness this short article from Touchstone. Notice he is not making a religious argument, but a rational one. Note to social conservatives: "Jesus said so" is not persuasive to non-Christians. "The pope says so," even less so! If you want to influence the culture, you must master the natural law arguments as well. It's Thomas Aquinas' principle about knowing your audience: with Jews you can argue the scriptures, with Greeks you must use reason. Here's a teaser from the piece:
. . .let there be no mistake: When I say we aren’t designed for this, I’m also speaking of males. A woman may be more likely to cry the next morning; it’s not so easy to sleep with a man who won’t even call you back. But a man pays a price too. He probably thinks he can instrumentalize his relationships with women in general, yet remain capable of romantic intimacy when the right woman comes along. Sorry, fellow. That’s not how it works.
Sex is like applying adhesive tape; promiscuity is like ripping the tape off again. If you rip it off, rip it off, rip it off, eventually the tape can’t stick anymore. This probably contributes to an even wider social problem that might be called the Peter Pan syndrome. Men in their forties with children in their twenties talk like boys in their teens. “I still don’t feel like a grown-up,” they say. They don’t even call themselves men—just “guys.”
Now, in a roundabout sort of way, I’ve just introduced you to the concept of natural law.
