A couple of weeks ago I successfully defended my dissertation research proposal. The dissertation’s working title is “Aristotelian Liberalism: An Inquiry into the Foundations of a Free and Flourishing Society.” If you’re interested, you can read the proposal here (pdf).
The Epigraphs
Freedom is, in truth, a sacred thing. There is only one thing else that better serves the name: that is virtue. But then what is virtue if not the free choice of what is good?
− Alexis de TocquevilleThe practical reason for freedom, then, is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed.
− Albert Jay Nock
The Abstract
My dissertation seeks to build on the recent work of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl in developing an Aristotelian liberalism. They argue that the right to liberty is a metanormative ethical principle necessary for protecting the possibility of self-direction, which is central to and necessary for all forms of eudaimonia (human flourishing, well-being, happiness). Contra Rasmussen and Den Uyl, however, it will be argued that rights are also, and more fundamentally, a set of interpersonal ethical principles the respecting of which is a necessary and constitutive part of eudaimonia. The dissertation will attempt to show that not only does a neo-Aristotelian philosophy provide (classical) liberalism with a sounder foundation, it also provides liberalism with the resources to answer traditional left-liberal, postmodern, communitarian and conservative challenges by avoiding some Enlightenment pitfalls that have plagued it since its inception: atomism, an a-historical and a-contextual view of human nature, license, excessive normative neutrality, the impoverishment of ethics and the trivialization of rights. It will be further argued, however, that there is still an excessive focus on the State and what it can and should do for us; and that the focus needs to return to the notion of politics as discourse and deliberation between equals in joint pursuit of eudaimonia and to what we as members of society can and should do for ourselves and each other. In order to fully answer left-liberal, postmodern, communitarian and conservative challenges it will be necessary to elucidate the ethical and cultural principles and institutions that are necessary for bringing about and maintaining a free society that promotes human flourishing, and this can be done without endangering liberalism’s commitment to liberty and pluralism.
Geoffrey is an Aristotelian-Liberal political philosopher and an adjunct instructor for Buena Vista University. His work has appeared in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the Journal of Value Inquiry, and Transformers and Philosophy. He lives in Bellevue, NE with his wife and daughter.
Political Science PhD
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Congratulations on a successful defense. The paper is ambitious and covers a lot of ground. You mention Michael Walzer and Sandel as communitarian. You cite Sandel’s works in your bibliography but not Walzer. Do you plan on critiquing Walzer in passing (as part of a group) or does he play a more specific role in your critique. Lastly, were LSU professors responsible for your research interests? It seems that most of the readings you have been doing are not exactly seminar reading material.
Best wishes,
SK
Thanks!
It is ambitious, yes. I think Dr. Eubanks would prefer it if I dropped a chapter or two and expanded the others.
I don’t know whether I will discuss Walzer or not. I have plenty of reading to do as it is!
No, our LSU professors were not responsible for my research interests…at least not directly. Taking classes with them (especially Sandoz and Eubanks) arguably helped me to realize the value and importance of Aristotelian liberalism though. I’ve done a lot of outside reading on various subjects from libertarianism to law to psychology to economics. Economics in particular I think every political philosopher should understand fairly well before making advocating any kind of ideal regime or government policies.
If you do discuss Walzer and you want it to be his thoughts on the liberalism/communitarian debate then check out his chapter in the Appendix of the book “Politics and Passion: Towards a More Egalitarian Liberalism” and the chapter in that book is titled “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” I’m not very familiar with the debate myself.
Best of luck,
SK
p.s. do you plan on following Eubank’s editorial advice or not or are you going to play it by ear with him for a while and see if any further reasons develop to edit it one way or another?
Thanks.
)
I’m going to stick to the current outline for now and see what happens. It may turn out that his comments, criticisms, suggestions, etc., require me to expand some parts at the expense of others.
The most expendable chapter is number 7, but I feel it needs to be in there in order to explain to people who are unfamiliar with the literature how a stateless society might provide goods and services it is currently thought must be provided by the state.
The other chapter he’s ambivalent about is number 6, the one on free markets and free enterprise, but I feel that one is necessary because not only communitarians but most critics of liberalism are critical of markets. Even conservatives have a love/hate relationship with it.
You must log in to post a comment.