Reaction to What We Can’t Know
In the Professor J. Budzisweski work, he questions the modern assumption that there are moral truths that are unknowable. He logically and clearly examines the tradition of the natural law and comprehensively restores confidence in the code of morality based on the human nature. Budziszewski acknowledges that there are some moral truths that are known to us, but we pretend not to know. He stipulates that we would be unable to face the condemnation of moral law without the knowledge of the religious redemption (Budziszewski 14).
According to Budziszewski, we innately understand things either right or wrong and no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape ourselves from that knowledge. For instance, an adulterer knows the wrong of adultery while a murderer knows the wrong of murder. Denial of moral knowledge ought to drive us to repentance but with no divine intervention; it can only lead us to commit more acts that are heinous (Budziszewski 98). Budziszewski explains that all human beings who are in violation of moral knowledge are simply lying. Human beings are given confidence in the truth of religious morality.
Murrel& Steve (29),helps us see the pattern of God’s fabric of the way things are and that can efface with the destruction of His works. Our design, the world’s design, and our conscience are all witnesses of the natural law. The rules in the religious books are all written in the deep conscience of every human being. Even though surface conscience can mistake, deep down, the things we cannot not know are always there. People may say otherwise, but clearly they know they are lying.
Conscience operates in two modes, feeling remorse for the morally committed wrong that can prevent the future repeat of the action or the urge to come forward, confess, and seek repentance. However, since not all people feel remorse, the knowledge of morally wrongdoing generates the need for confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. Other sister furies of remorse like inflexibility, relentless and inexorable demanding satisfaction fade away, suppressed or never come at all (Budziszewski 114).
The avenger mode punishes the wrongdoer’s soul, and surprising refuses to read the indictment (Campos, Nauro&Fabrizio 40). The common outlet to remorse is fleed from the wrong, outlet to Confession is admitting the wrong one has done, the outlet to atonement is to pay the debt, the outlet to reconciliation is the restoration of the broken bonds and outlet to justification is to get back to what is right. I agree with Budziszewski that conscience is a teacher and a judge through cautionary, avenging, and accusatory modes.
According to Budziszewski, denial of the Furies of Conscience only leads to wrongdoers to commit more and more wrongs driving their lives to the kilter. The wrongdoer compulsively confesses the action committed and strongly deny its moral sense. As a result, this not only makes the wrongdoer try to flee from the action committed but also refrain from thinking about it. The justification of own actions brings more and more punishment to the wrongdoers as they try to deny Furies of conscience. This is evident as they seek companionship with guilty as they are to simulate broken bonds of intimacy (Budziszewski 120).
According to Budziszewski, the target readers of this book is the persuaded, half persuaded and wish-I-were-persuaded. Although he writes the book from the Christian point of view, he explicitly invites people from other religions to read the book. Budziszewski asks all people to read the book to feel the weight of the moral law or the weight of instincts or feelings for the non-religious. The author justifies his decision to write the book from Christian perspective by referring to Rabbi David Novak, who wrote a book from Judaism perceptive. Clearly, this book is relevant to people of any faith tradition since the book primary aim is to instill confidence to the people in the rational foundations of the moral law.
Budziszewski clearly writes about the shared presuppositions of the moral law and comment on his faith with insights that are separate from what is common. The author claims the book is not for a firmly persuaded audience, and he acknowledges that this is due to their different perceptive of things. He still invites this audience to follow through despite being on different sides hence his Christianity does not affect largely the readers of this book. However, some few readers may feel over reference of the Christian religion but this does not prevent them on reading the main aim of the book: moral law.
Do we need to ask ourselves the role of public relation to the moral right? The methods applied by the public to judge what is morally right or wrong are whose goal is to acquire power either creating or breaking patterns. For instance, the movement against cloning project seeks confusion of the human identity instead of a solution to childlessness. Clearly, the role of public relation to the moral right is to identify the conflict that exists. The author acknowledges that the cultural activists make mistakes when defending the natural law in the public (Budziszewski 250).
In conclusion, Budziszewski points out the persons only hope to become even wickeder and more stupid than planned to become so wretched that they come to themselves or of God. He points that what is called “the left hand of God” maybe the left hand of his mercy and that perhaps to soften a heart,He will let it become even more rocklike. There for he believes that we claim we can’t not know, we know it but we are living a lie of denial.
Budziszewski J., What we can’t not know.1st ed.2003.Web
Murrell, Steve. 100 Years from Now Sustaining a Movement for Generations. Nashville, Tenn.: Dunham, 2013. Print.
Campos, Nauro F., and FabrizioCoricelli. Growth in Transition: What We Know, What We Don’t and What We Should. London:, 2002. Print.