Aristotelian-liberal autonomy

Written in the burgeoning tradition of Aristotelian liberalism, my thesis seeks to enrich this tradition by developing a liberal theory of autonomy based on a broadly Aristotelian foundation. Chapter One summarizes and critiques the major contemporary theories of autonomy developed by Kant and analytic philosophers. Chapter Two explicates the Aristotelian conception of autonomy, drawing on recent work by Fred Miller and Roderick Long. Aristotle is chided for not being liberal enough and so Chapter Three develops an Aristotelian-liberal theory of autonomy based in part on recent work by Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl and Roderick Long. Global and local individual autonomy are distinguished, with global autonomy being the exercise of one\u27s rational faculty (or self-direction) and local autonomy relating to particular desires, preferences, actions, and so forth. Local autonomy is further conceived as having three fundamental dimensions: political, social, and personal. Political autonomy equates with the traditional classical liberal/libertarian concept of liberty, and is normatively protected by the right to liberty. Social autonomy involves freedom from social influences other than the threat or use of physical force that lead a person to deviate from his telos. Personal autonomy involves internal freedom from deviant desires, severe addiction to drugs, and so forth that lead a person to deviate from his telos. Personal and social autonomy cannot be promoted at the systematic expense of political autonomy. Aristotelian liberalism, and an Aristotelian-liberal theory of autonomy, promise to transcend the liberal/communitarian debate. An Aristotelian-liberal theory of autonomy avoids the Enlightenment pitfalls that plague Kantian and analytic theories of autonomy

Aristotelian liberalism: an inquiry into the foundations of a free and flourishing society

My dissertation builds on the recent work of Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl and Roderick Long in developing an Aristotelian liberalism. It is argued that a neo- Aristotelian form of liberalism has a sounder foundation than others and has the resources to answer traditional left-liberal, postmodern, communitarian and conservative challenges by avoiding certain Enlightenment pitfalls: the charges of atomism, an a-historical and a- contextual view of human nature, license, excessive normative neutrality, the impoverishment of ethics and the trivialization of rights. An Aristotelian theory of virtue ethics and natural rights is developed that allows for a robust conception of the good while fully protecting individual liberty and pluralism. It is further argued that there is an excessive focus on what the State can and should do for us; politics is reconceived as discourse and deliberation between equals in joint pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing, well-being, happiness) and its focus is shifted to what we as members of society can and should do for ourselves and each other