This book review is very critical and informative. That is how it should be. But I was struck by this expression of repugnance: "Whether or not this is a coherent position (one hopes it is not Aristotle's), it is hardly an attractive synthesis of conventionalism and naturalism. It is, quite frankly, a repugnant doctrine in its own right, one that appears to license any and all forms of positive law as concrete expressions of natural justice." The reviewer explains why the doctrine is repugnant: "For all that Burns says, it appears to follow both that no principle of natural law is sufficient to establish a set of just or unjust actions in the absence of its embodiment within a particular code of positive civil law, and that any such code, at any time in place, will have the force of natural justice. This includes, as Burns makes clear, civil codes endorsing the institution of slavery (7, 90)." Yet, are scholarly book reviews the right place for expressions of repugnance? I think so, but wonder what readers think.