Nagel is decidedly not a libertarian, but he has a remarkable ability to penetrate to the essence of important issues; and this collection of his recent essays and reviews displays his characteristic depth. FULL ARTICLE by David Gordon
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11298/thomas-nagel-a-major-contemporary-philosopher/
Thomas Nagel: A Major Contemporary Philosopher
Previous post: American’s Crazed Corn Habit
Next post: Atlas Shrugged at Fifty
{ 5 comments }
Professor Leiter has written to me and believes that his position was misrepresented. He does not oppose debate about naturalism, but he thinks that the Discovery Institute is dishonest and that Nagel acted irresponsibly in recommending a book written by a leading member of that group. I do not agree with what he says about the Discovery Institute and Nagel, but readers are urged to examine Professor Leiter’s posts, available in the links above, and to judge for themselves.
“Freedom of speech and religion are liberties to which everyone is entitled, and societies that do not recognize these rights are acting badly. But property is another matter. “
If property rights are creatures of the state then so are religious and speech rights. Why? Because the state could just rule that the unfavored religion or speakers aren’t allowed to have any property.
This is not an argument that originates with me and should be known to anyone with a cursory knowledge of political literature. If you are not allowed to own printing presses then how can you in an real sense have free speech.
“Although he does not accept Intelligent Design, Nagel refuses to dismiss the movement as merely religious. Critics claim that design cannot be a legitimate scientific hypothesis; but at the same time, they maintain that the theory can be shown to be false. Nagel pertinently asks, how can both of these assertions be true together? Further, Nagel sees no constitutional obstacle to teaching Intelligent Design.”
He equivocates between the general and the specific.
ID can be shown to be false in particular instances but proponents will just shift to other examples. That is why it is not scientific. It’s like claiming there is a magical teapot in the next room, and upon examination of the room we find it not there, so the proponent claims that it has moved to the next room.
ID is tightly coupled with creationism and is therefore religious in nature. The Dover case showed this when written documents by creationist were discovered explaining their strategy to substitute ID as a cover for creationism. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Brian, you clearly don’t know anything about ID or Creation Science or you wouldn’t make that claim. Both demonstrate where evolutionary science makes mistakes in the science itself. And the mistakes are numerous. Check out Dr. Brown’s book at creationscience.com and tell me it’s not science.
It’s religion.
“Freedom of speech and religion are liberties to which everyone is entitled, and societies that do not recognize these rights are acting badly. But property is another matter.”
John Locke’s fundamental principle is that man owns himself. It follows that he owns the fruits of his activities, and does not own another. It is true that there are times when it is imperative to curtail those rights, as in emergencies. However, *if in principle man does not own his property, he has no justification for any rights at all*.
If ‘justice’ is relative to a political community, not only can the community take your property, it can take your life. I submit that justice is an ideal that is logically and spiritually prior to a political community.
Comments on this entry are closed.