George defends the neo-Thomistic view of natural law as refined by Messrs. Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle. This is not an uncontroversial stance. The core of the book is Chapter III, where the Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle version of natural law that George intends to defend is given. The book is rigorous and examines natural-law theory from variegated angles and various detractors, making close reading of dense argument necessary. The early chapters presuppose knowledge of natural law theory; thus, neophytes may profitably read Chapter III first. Chapter II is reserved for those already versed in natural law theory and want a examination of meta-ethics nuances.

I didn't like the way the naturalistic fallacy is handled (more "sidelined"), as if it is a minor point to a major premise. But George's defense of natural law theory avoids the fallacy (norms derived from facts) by using the Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle model, and succeeds in staying clear of metaphysical foundations. This caveat aside, I know of no better, one-volume, exhaustive, and sustained argument for natural law theory. It's dizzying reading, and even if inevitably unconvincing, generally worthwhile.