Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Thomas Nagel, who is one of the best moral philosophers in the world today (in my humble opinion), takes David Brooks to the woodshed. Keep in mind that Brooks is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, which published Nagel's review. Nagel almost certainly censored himself so as not to offend the Times. As for the substance of Nagel's review, he is exactly right: Explaining and justifying are fundamentally different activities. To explain something (e.g., religion, morality, law, or love) in naturalistic terms is not to call it into question. Science can be explained in naturalistic terms. Does that have any tendency to undermine it? Mathematics can be explained in naturalistic terms. Does that have any tendency to undermine it? Philosophy can be explained in naturalistic terms. Does that have any tendency to undermine it? Indeed, everything—every institution, practice, action, motive, emotion, belief, character trait, sexual orientation, and event—can, in principle, be explained in naturalistic terms. So either everything is undermined or nothing is.