Great book on the libertarian mindset for Catholics

[mrsdizzyd]

I guess I’m struggling to find where Feser wrote what you are claiming specifically with regard to abortion. Could you quote it?

I didn’t say that he claimed that being pro-life was incompatible (in and of itself) with Libertarianism. I conceded as much when I said that one can be both pro-life and libertarian.

When I asked about how England deals with the abortion issue I was asking because I wanted to know if he was using classical natural law theory as a foundation for Libertarianism or if he was arguing for some innovation with regards to how Libertarianism is compatible with Catholicism.

What Feser argues is that classical natural law theory (in sum) is incompatible with Libertarianism. He is not making an abortion specific argument.

 

[Tarsier]

I didn’t say that he claimed that being pro-life was incompatible (in and of itself) with Libertarianism. I conceded as much when I said that one can be both pro-life and libertarian.

Well, you said it rather tentatively. You said you “suppose” one could, but that was qualified by the statement below: Let’s look at why your questions would be confusing to me. You actually wrote:

This the part I don’t understand about prolife libertarians.

You didn’t say “some” prolife libertarians. You indicated you didn’t understand that about prolife libertarians, period. You then went on to qualify that by suggesting the Catholic natural law argument undermines self-ownershsip. Same paragraph. Putting a general statement about not understanding prolife libertarians together with the issue of self-ownership implies that this would make it inconsistent for any libertarian to have that view. BUT, maybe I misunderstood you, so I asked how you to expand. Now, keep in mind I asked you to explain THIS specific statement.

Your explanation:

In short, the catholic pro-life position is one that is advanced from an Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law perspective. Feser argues that there is no way for AT to serve as a foundation for libertarianism. From Feser’s perspective, AT is not only incompatible with self-ownership, but several other thesis of Libertarianism.

I think his argument is persuasive.

Let’s sum this up with a syllogism. Premise 1: THE Catholic pro-life position IS advanced from A-T natural law. Premise 2: FESER argues that there is no compatibility with A-T natural law and self-ownership and "several otehr theses of libertarianism. (Note I used your wording). Conclusion: The Catholic pro-life position is inconsistent with A-T natural law, which you “found persuasive”.

So, yes, you were implying that Feser’s argument incompassed pro-life. I showed you quotes that argued you were misreading Feser. He was simply making the case for a necessary conservative bias in libertarian application of self-ownership.

When I asked about how England deals with the abortion issue I was asking because I wanted to know if he was using classical natural law theory as a foundation for Libertarianism or if he was arguing for some innovation with regards to how Libertarianism is compatible with Catholicism.

Then just ask that. Look at our thread. I very specifically asked you to clarify what you meant, and you had at least two posts where you could have, but didn’t. But England’s approach isn’t innovation. He’s using the same argument as Feser, which is why I showed you that Feser’s “persuasive” argument supports pro-life. I’m wondering if you even closely read what Feser wrote, since he specifically addresses the point you say he is convincingly against.

 

[Tarsier]

What Feser argues is that classical natural law theory (in sum) is incompatible with Libertarianism. He is not making an abortion-specific argument.

I know he’s not, but I asked YOU to explain why you thought self-ownership was a problem for the pro-life view, and you cited Feser as an answer. If he wasn’t making that argument, you should have either not cited him or you should have explained why you were using applying a non pro-life argument to a pro-life examination of libertarianism. I didn’t cause the confusion here.

You are A) bringing him up in a discussion of Libertarianism and pro-life and B) saying you find it convincing as an argument in that conversation and C) apparently unaware that Feser is not only NOT making an abortion-specific argument, but he makes a pro-life argument.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Well, you certainly read a whole lot into a few sentences that was not there.

It’s really quite simple. If you are going to use classical natural law theory as the basis for arguing that Catholics should be libertarian, then you have to explain how you don’t eventually end up where Feser did ie rejecting Libertarianism as incompatible with classical natural law theory and ultimately Catholic social teaching.

Granted, You may not have liked the roundabout way I asked my question. Granted, I could have asked it a different way. Nevertheless, I didn’t, and that was my prerogative.

Also, it’s worth noting that I asked my question in the context of you recommending a book and me trying to decide whether or not to add it to my excruciatingly long Catholic reading list. I did not ask it because I want to have a debate about pro-life issues or classical natural law theory. Considering the fact that I used to identify as a libertarian and now identify as a center-right small government moderate, I was intrigued by the title.

At any rate, I’ve now made my decision about the book title. Thank you for confirming that England hasn’t offered any innovations on the subject.

 

[Tarsier]

Well, you certainly read a whole lot into a few sentences that was not there.

It’s really quite simple. If you are going to use classical natural law theory as the basis for arguing that Catholics should be libertarian, then you have to explain how you don’t eventually end up where Feser did ie rejecting Libertarianism as incompatible with classical natural law theory and ultimately Catholic social teaching.

Granted, You may not have liked the roundabout way I asked my question. Granted, I could have asked it a different way. Nevertheless, I didn’t, and that was my prerogative.

Also, it’s worth noting that I asked my question in the context of you recommending a book and me trying to decide whether or not to add it to my excruciatingly long Catholic reading list. I did not ask it because I want to have a debate about pro-life issues or classical natural law theory. Considering the fact that I used to identify as a libertarian and now identify as a center-right small government moderate, I was intrigued by the title.

At any rate, I’ve now made my decision about the book title. Thank you for confirming that England hasn’t offered any innovations on the subject.

Well, your passive-aggressive conclusion aside, your first paragraph points to the problem. Feser did not reject pro-life as incompatible with libertarianism, which was your exact question. In fact, he showed that it was very compatible, per my quotes. The subject never changed to the broader question of classical natural law until you made it go that direction after I provided quotes to show you were wrong on Feser’s conclusion, as applied to prolife (the only thing we had discussed until that point). We never debated prolife issues - we went back and forth because you chose pointlessly “roundabout” way of just asking a simple question. Go back and count how many of your posts it took for you to actually get there.

It wasn’t a roundabout way of asking a question - it was an inadequate one. You contradicted yourself, and I demonstrated that. I also never suggested he offered “innovations”. Nor does he promise that. He’s simply using libertarian writings and Catholic writings, including a large amount from Thomas, to establish that the two are complementary.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

your first paragraph points to the problem. Feser did not reject pro-life as incompatible with libertarianism, which was your exact question.

Are you reading what I wrote? I quite literally never said that. You read that into my words.

The subject never changed to the broader question of classical natural law until you made it go that direction after I provided quotes to show you were wrong on Feser’s conclusion

In my second reply to you I told you what my objective was. I said

I’m trying to get a sense for what his version of Libertarianism looks like.

I suppose an individual can be both pro-life and libertarian, but I’d be very Interested to hear how he would end up getting behind legal restrictions to abortion (for instance) while remaining consistent in his approach to libertarianism.

Note the bold sections. I wanted to know how he was going to be consistent in his approach.

You gave your reply in which you basically said that England used classical natural law to defend the pro-life position. Then I asked a larger question that goes to the heart of my interest in England’s wider approach and whether or not he would be consistent: “Doesn’t a Catholic natural law argument undermine (at least in part) self-ownership?” Note the absence of the word pro-life in that question.

According to Feser, the answer to this question is YES classical natural law theory undermines an absolutely right to self-ownership.

Why did I ask about the pro-life issue? It was NOT because I thought Feser had declared the Pro-life position entirely incompatible with Libertarianism (as you assumed I did). It was because I wanted to know something very specific. I wanted to know if England was able to make the Catholic pro-life position compatible with libertarianism without appealing to classical natural law theory. I was looking for an innovation in this regard. Why did I want to know that? Because appealing to classical natural law theory ultimately undermines Libertarianism. So, if in the end England is simply going to argue that Libertarianism and classical natural law theory are compatible without addressing Feser’s critique, then I am not interested.

 

[StudentMI]

Another great article of Feser’s.

Rothbard as a philosopher

Some years back I wrote a very critical post about the libertarian anarchist Murray Rothbard for the old Right Reason blog. Professor Gerard...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[Tarsier]

I wanted to know if England was able to make the Catholic pro-life position compatible with libertarianism without appealing to classical natural law theory.

This would have been an awesome way to ask the question and save us both some energy.