In 1981, the People's Publishing House in Beijing published a collection of controversial writings on alienation and humanism entitled Man Is the Starting Point of Marxism. Edited by the philosopher and journalist Wang Ruoshui, the collection included contributions by twelve different authors, including two by an obscure associate professor of philosophy and former "bourgeois rightist" from Lanzhou University by the name of Gao Ertai. Together, in 1983, Wang and Gao were criticized by name in a Central Party Circular for having (...) used Man Is the Starting Point of Marxism to propagate the politically suspect philosophical notion that alienation is no less common under socialism than under capitalism, and that humanism transcends class interests. (shrink)

Whether or not Strauss's observation is historically accurate, it does suggest two sets of questions for philosophical examination. (1) Is Strauss correct to view natural duties and natural rights as the same type of ethical concept? Do they serve the same function? Do they work on the same level, and are they necessarily in competition with each other? (2) Does saying that the individual human being is the center of the moral world require that one reject the idea of a (...) human end, or telos? Does accepting the ethical centrality of a human telos require that one reject ethical individualism? Are they mutually exclusive?Footnotes* For criticism, we are grateful to the other contributors to this volume and to its editors, as well as Paul Gaffney. (shrink)

Ayn Rand's 1943 masterpiece, The Fountainhead is the story of Howard Roark, an architect of enormous talent who turns down one lucrative commission after another because they would force him to modify his designs and compromise his integrity, but in spite of his refusals, or perhaps because of them, he goes on to triumph over many obstacles and establish himself as a master. Douglas Den Uyl's new study, The Fountainhead: An American Novel, is the first volume to exclusively explore (...) Rand's most famous novel and also delve into her theory of individualism, called "objectivism." This theory eschews all government intervention into both the lives of individuals and the workings of a capitalist economy and has inspired a popular philosophical following for Rand over the years. (shrink)

The first part of this project deals with the more recent historical discussions of the topic, Most of which focus on the views of aristotle and j s mill. These two authors turn out to be the focus of attention of most writers who wish to consider the major historical reflections on happiness, Ones that have shaped our thinking on the topic. The second part of this project deals with contemporary original thinking about happiness. Yet here, Too, The major themes (...) on the topic tend to hark back to either the aristotelian or the millian line of analysis. In this section various putative components of happiness or philosophical topics and methods related to understanding happiness are discussed one by one. The paper concludes with some reflections of the authors about the merits of a eudaimonistic conception of happiness. (shrink)

Aristotle's way of thinking has normally been understood as hostile to any liberal, pluralistic, or commercial society. In Liberal Nature, Rasmussen and Den Uyl set out to show that the Aristotelian approach to ethics supports the natural rights which form the most secure basis for liberal principles. The authors lay the foundations for their thesis by rebutting the most prominent arguments against the Aristotelian approach; they then offer a new interpretation for Aristotelian ethics as a natural-end ethics in which human (...) flourishing is the ultimate moral standard. (shrink)

How can we establish a political/legal order that in principle does not require the human flourishing of any person or group to be given structured preference over that of any other? Addressing this question as the central problem of political philosophy,_ Norms of Liberty_ offers a new conceptual foundation for political liberalism that takes protecting liberty, understood in terms of individual negative rights, as the primary aim of the political/legal order. Rasmussen and Den Uyl argue for construing individual rights as (...) metanormative principles, directly tied to politics, that are used to establish the political/ legal conditions under which full moral conduct can take place. These they distinguish from normative principles, used to provide guidance for moral conduct within the ambit of normative ethics. This crucial distinction allows them to develop liberalism as a metanormative theory, not a guide for moral conduct. The moral universe need not be minimized or morality grounded in sentiment or contracts to support liberalism, they show. Rather, liberalism can be supported, and many of its internal tensions avoided, with an ethical framework of Aristotelian inspiration—one that understands human flourishing to be an objective, inclusive, individualized, agent-relative, social, and self-directed activity. (shrink)

DOUGLAS J. DEN UYL expresses agreement with David Kelley's thesis in A Life of One's Own that the welfare state is not a good thing both for moral reasons and for its practical consequences. But the relationship between the moral and the political is more ambiguous than might first be imagined. The main questions explored are twofold: Is Kelley presupposing the truth of his own position in criticizing another and does this alter the presentation from argument to rhetoric?; and (...) secondly, is Kelley's approach to the moral issue the only one that can be used to criticize the welfare state? (shrink)

Contemporary political philosophy - especially in the works of Martha Nussbaum, John Rawls and Amartya Sen - has assumed that it can separate itself off from other philosophical positions and frameworks. In this book, Den Uyl and Rasmussen challenge this trend by moving from the liberalism they advocate in their earlier work to what they call 'individualistic perfectionism' in ethics. They continue to challenge the assumption that a neo-Aristotelian ethical framework cannot support a liberal, non-perfectionist political theory by filling in (...) the nature of the perfectionist ethical approach utilised in their previous political theorising. By developing the central features and principles of individualistic perfectionism they show that it is a major and powerful alternative to much contemporary ethical thinking - particularly to constructivism - and that it is capable of overcoming standard objections to perfectionism. (shrink)

This book is a clearly presented and, within its frame of discourse, a well argued effort to do precisely what its descriptive title suggests. The first two chapters attack universalism in ethics in both its intuitionist and respect-for-persons forms. The teleological alternatives of rule utilitarianism and contractarianism are considered in the following chapter. There is no chapter devoted specifically to skepticism, but the author endeavors to show throughout how his theory steers clear of that alternative.

As each individual abandons himself to the solicitous aid of the State,so, and still more, he abandons to it the fate of his fellow-citizens.Wilhelm Von Humboldt,On the Limits of State Action.

In his book, The Rejection of Consequentialism, Samuel Scheffler ends his last chapter in the following way.

This essay is a response to Peter E. Vedder's Fall 2007 review of the authors' book, Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics. Vedder argues that the authors 1) have a Kantian notion of self-directedness, and 2) are inconsistent in the application of their philosophical anthropology to their view of political liberty. In denying both claims, the authors assert that Vedder both fails to define certain terms and holds them to positions they do not accept.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury, was the grandson of the First Earl of Shaftesbury. The First Earl, along with John Locke, was a leader and founder of the Whig movement in Britain. Locke was the First Earl's secretary and also the tutor of the Third Earl. Both the First and Third Earls were members of parliament and supporters of Whig causes. Although both the First and Third Earls were involved in politics, the Third Earl is better known (...) for intellectual pursuits. Indeed, the Third Earl is second only to Locke in terms of influence during the eighteenth century. Yet if one takes into account effects upon literature, the arts, and manners, as well as upon philosophical trends and theories, Shaftesbury might be even more influential. Even if we restrict ourselves to philosophy, Shaftesbury's ideas were admired by thinkers as different as Leibniz and Montesquieu—something which could obviously not be said about Locke. Within ethics, Shaftesbury influenced Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Samuel Butler, and Adam Smith and is credited with founding the “moral sense” school of thought. (shrink)

It could be said that the book considers consensus in two basic ways: cognitively and socially. The latter would include ethics, value theory, political philosophy, and communication. The former considers the role of consensus in seeking and understanding the truth and would thus include epistemology and science. In all cases, consensus is a form of agreement. In the epistemological realm it emerges as some form of shared understanding, while in the social we see it as like-mindedness regarding procedures or principles. (...) Of course, there can be no radical separation between the social and the cognitive regarding consensus, because consensus is an inherently social concept. This is reflected in the actual organization of the book. The first chapter is entitled "Consensus, Rationality and Epistemic Morality," suggesting how the social and cognitive are necessarily linked. That chapter is followed by five chapters dealing primarily with cognitive questions, while the last few chapters concern social issues. The two dimensions are neatly connected by a middle chapter on axiology. (shrink)

CHARLES TAYLOR, IN TWO IMPORTANT ESSAYS, offers both a refutation of what appears to be the foundations of liberalism as well as an alternative “third way” to the liberal-communitarian debate. In this paper we are broadly interested in the role of community within a liberal framework, and for that reason the Taylor essays are a useful way to begin such an exploration. There is, we believe, much in Taylor with which to agree. If liberalism somehow fails to accommodate any meaningful (...) conception of community or somehow manages to undermine the possibility of community, that would be a serious strike against it. “Atomism” is one of those concepts inherently linked by thinkers such as Taylor to liberalism. It is the sort of concept meant to evoke, if not describe, a perspective on human association that is at least problematic to community-building, if not directly undermining it. Taylor’s first essay with the title of “Atomism” explores this idea and levels the charge of anticommunity against liberalism. The second essay, “Cross Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate,” builds upon that charge but seeks to moderate the apparent antiliberal stance of the first. Our position is that liberalism is not opposed to community and that “atomism” when applied to liberalism is something of a myth — a caricature rather than an integral part of liberalism. Our specific theses will be the following: “atomism” as used by Taylor is a confused tool and one whose uses for understanding liberalism are extremely limited, if applicable at all; the applicability of “atomism” is ironically more consistent with certain forms of collectivism than with liberalism; and Taylor’s own proposed way of navigating the difference between liberalism and communitarianism is in the end a form of communitarianism and not an alternative at all. (shrink)