{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01854043392504931, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.215686274509804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: The Ethics of Gender

chapter discussing elements of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the particular ways that they transcend minimalist natural law claims and offer more specific guidance in various departments of human life. The book is impressive in many respects. It is thorough and precise about the specific problems associated with natural law theory, and the chapters on relativism and historicism exhibit impressive erudition and insight. Few books on natural law grapple so extensively and fairly with objectors as does this one, and its responses are admirable in their breadth and depth. There are some drawbacks to the book. Conspicuously absent is any discussion of evolutionary theory and its challenge to natural law theory. The reason why natural human inclinations possess normative moral import, according to a Thomistic account of natural law, is that they represent the ordering wisdom of God. If the natural inclinations are products of evolution occurring over millennia, however, and if the evolutionary process is correctly characterized as random and haphazard (which most evolutionary theorists claim), with no discernible divine direction involved, then the theological connection between the natural inclinations and divine providence is severed, and along with it any notion that the natural inclinations possess normative moral import. In my opinion, evolutionary theory strikes at the heart of a Thomistic account of natural law. It would have behooved S. to address this issue at length. Another shortcoming is the opacity surrounding S.’s bifurcation of the moral sphere into two dimensions: natural law, which supports the indispensable minimum for human existence; and formal revelation, which grounds an ethic of perfection that encompasses far more aspects of human life. Throughout the book, S. wants to limit the sphere of natural law only to those issues that bear upon the necessary minimal conditions for human existence. Yet in his discussions of practical moral issues he consistently goes beyond this limitation and renders moral judgments on these issues, based on his notion of natural law, without considering relevant biblical material. Thus, I wonder whether his bifurcation is artificial, as well as how these two spheres relate in practice. Despite these drawbacks, S. makes a number of valuable contributions to contemporary natural law theory. While the book is a demanding read, requiring considerable background in natural law theory, it is worth the effort.