Links & Quotes — mostly

Aristotelian Politics: Dangerous for Liberty? | Douglas B. Rasmussen | Cato Unbound

leave a comment »

Nevertheless, what is it that legitimates a political/legal order? What is the nature of the connection between the ethical order and the political/legal order? There is a prima facie difference between claiming (i) that doing M is good or right (bad or wrong) and ought to be done (ought not to be done) and claiming (ii) that doing M ought to be politically/legally required (prohibited). These claims are not semantically equal, and (i) does not, by itself, imply (ii). Or, as Aquinas suggests: there are demands of justice that are morally binding and there are demands of justice that are morally and legally binding. Indeed, the datum explanandum of political philosophy is what, if anything, entitles one to move from the ethical to the political—from (i) to (ii). What is it that connects these two claims?

One begs the question if one simply assumes that the aim of the political/legal order is soulcraft. There are alternatives. Most importantly, there is the idea that defines the American political tradition—namely, establishing a political regime that secures individual rights.


Written by njordat

March 17, 2011 at 11:16 am

Posted in Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: