The basic good is the cornerstone of Finnis's new natural law theory, in which the basic good is self-evident, incommensurable, and non-hierarchical, and which plays a guiding role as the pre-moral domain of human behaviour. Practical reasonableness, which is the criterion by which decisions are judged to be consistent with the basic good and which guides one's inclination towards the basic good, both is a basic good and a methodology for achieving the basic good. Finnis takes a firm moral philosophical stance and constructs a new natural law theory that extrapolates from facts to values and responds to real-life ethical dilemmas. Even though Finnis's new theory of natural law still cannot escape the difficulties of Western legal dualism, his contemporary interpretation of the specific content of the basic good and the many requirements of practical reasonableness, and his attention to the clarity of concepts and the rigour of the logic of the concepts, make his exploration of natural law more scientific and profound.

Li Huang. The Basic Good of John Finnis's New Natural Law Theory. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2025), Vol. 7, Issue 7: 14-17. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2025.070703.

[1] Finnis, John. Moral Absolutes.New York: CUA, 1 Jan. 1991.Print.

[2] Finnis, John. Aquinas.United Kingdom:Oxford, 1998.Print.

[3] Finnis, John. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford ; New York: Oxford, 2011.Print.

[4] Finnis, John. Philosophy of Law. United Kingdom:Oxford, 7 Apr. 2011.Print.

[5] Finnis, John. Religion and Public Reasons.; New York:Oxford, 2011.Print.

[6] Dworkin, Ronald.Is Democracy Possibility Here? Principle for a New Political Debate. New York: Princeton, 2006.Print.

[7] Richards, David A. J. Review of John Finnis: Natural Law and Natural Rights. Ethics 93(1982): 169-173.

[8] Weinreb, Lloyd L, and Harvard University Press. Natural Law and Justice. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard, 2013.Print.

[9] Murphy, Mark C.Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics.London: Cambridge, 2006.Print.

[10] Sokolowski, Robert. “Discovery and Obligation in Natural Law.” Natural Moral Law in Contemporary Society, edited by Holger Zaborowski, Catholic University of America Press, 2010, pp. 24–43. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2852bf.5. Accessed 22 Dec. 2024.

[11] Fan Jin-xue. "Is Rights Superior to Libety?——The theoretic debate between the new liberalism and communitarianism".Journal of Political Science and Law. 03 (2016): 3-10.

[12] Liu Qingping. "How to get out of the maze of facts and values?——Analysis of the inherent paradox of Finnis's concept of natural law." Guizhou Social Sciences. 02 (2021): 20-26.

[13] Lu Xingfu. "Epistemological Dilemma of Natural Law Theory: Finnis's Solution and Reflection." Legal System and Social Development 25.02(2019):105-119.

[14] Tang Dongzhe. "Defending Finnis's Theory of Natural Law: A Discussion with Professor Liu Qingping." History of Political Thought 14.01(2023):174-188+200.

[15] Wu Yan. "The Philosophical Presuppositions of the Grise-Finnis Theory of Natural Law: A Critical Examination." Journal of Fudan University (Social Sciences) 63.01(2021):136-151.

[16] Wang Zhiyong. "Dilemma and Overcoming of the Classical Formal View of the Rule of Law: From Fuller to Phoenix." Northern Journal of Law 15.04(2021):138-147.

[17] Yang Tianjiang. "The Grise-Finnis School in the Renaissance of Natural Law Theory in the English-speaking World." Journal of Suzhou University (Law Edition), 6.02 (2019): 27-38.

[18] Zhu Zhen. "Rights and Autonomy: Exploring a Moral Basis for the Priority of Rights." Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law 19.03(2016):26-35.