| || ||
The Illusion of Freedom Separated from Moral Virtue | Raymond L. Dennehy, University of San
Part Two | Part One
THE NATURAL LAW FOUNDATION OF VIRTUE ETHICS
American democracy has its
foundation in natural law, as is clear from the Declaration of
Independence. Since the monistic theory of virtue ethics maintains that
the standard of moral conduct is human nature properly ordered, and that
that nature is universal, it follows that it presupposes natural law
theory. For, if there is a single human nature, it follows that all humans
will have the same exigencies, display the same drives, and hence be bound
by the same essential principles. Nominalists deny that there is such a
thing as a real human nature or essence, but besides courting nonsense,
nominalism is inconsistent with a universal declaration of human rights or
any rational defense of civil rights. Only if all humans are essentially
the same (this excludes morally irrelevant characteristics such as race,
state of health, economic condition) are they all entitled in justice to
the moral and legal considerations called "rights." That is why an
epistemological nominalist like Rorty can only propose pragmatic social
policies. Since he maintains that our philosophical claims are culturally
and historically bound, there is no "God's eye view" from which we can
view reality (Rorty 1991: 202). Our picture of ourselves and nature is
discourse is the lifeblood of democracy, but no constructive discourse is
possible without commonly accepted principles, many of which originate in
natural law theory. Equally important is that because the natural law is
knowable by unaided reason, religious pluralism is compatible with public
discourse to the extent that reason transcends all ethnocentric and
religious boundaries. It is the coin of the (world) realm (Murray 1960:
To grasp the precise connection between
natural law and moral virtue, it is necessary to avoid confusion over
terms. In common parlance, "natural" is a synonym for spontaneous
occurrences, such as the sprouting of sapling trees, dogs growling over a
bone, or reflexively throwing one's hands up to one's head to fend off a
thrown object. This use of the word juxtaposes the natural to the
artificial, which embraces all products of human artifice. Since aspirin
and eyeglasses are artificial, instead of natural, the use of "natural" to
express moral approval and "unnatural" to express moral condemnation may
But in the natural law tradition,
"natural" is intended in the sense of the Greek word for nature,
physis: "The conception underlying that term sees nature itself as
teleological: a striving for fulfillment (horme) is attributed to
all natural entities, including human beings. What allows an entity to
actualize the potentials of its determinate nature, its essence, and
thereby to attain its perfection (telos) is natural and therefore
good or desirable; what frustrates its actualization is evil or
undesirable" (Dennehy 1993: 630). With this understanding of "natural,"
the products of human artifice are not necessarily unnatural, since they
may contribute to the positive actualization of human nature: aspirin
alleviates pain; eye glasses facilitate the aim of the eye, which is to
see; the formation of political society is necessary for human
flourishing. The telos of each living thing is determined by its
essence or nature. Thus, the theory of natural law derives from the human
understanding that "there is, by the very virtue of human nature, an order
or a disposition which human reason can discover and according to which
the human will must act in order to attune itself to the essential and
necessary ends of the human being. The unwritten law, or natural law, is
nothing more than that" (Maritain 1966: 86).
objection frequently raised against natural law is that if it is indeed
natural, how come all peoples do not follow the same set of moral laws?
The answer is epistemological and ethical. Regarding the epistemological,
one can, following Maritain, distinguish between the ontological and
gnoseological aspects of natural law. The former term refers to human
nature or essence as it really is; the latter refers to one's
understanding of that nature. Historical and social forces have much to do
with how a people understand moral behavior. The more clearly they grasp
human nature and its exigencies, the more closely their moral behavior
conforms to natural law. Thus, natural law does not change because human
nature does not change (Maritain 1966: 85-89). What changes is knowledge
of human nature--for better or for worse.
moral virtues, chief among them prudence, justice, fortitude, and
temperance, play an indispensable part in the fulfillment of natural law.
However, establishing that connection requires several preliminary steps.
First, there is a preamble to natural law: "Do good and avoid evil"
(Aquinas 1945: 774). This is implied in all action, for no one acts except
to obtain what is good or avoid what is evil. The mugger forcibly takes
the woman's purse, since acquiring money in that way appears to him to be
good, that is, desirable; the child tries to avoid eating the vegetables
on his plate, because eating them appears to him to be undesirable. These
are examples of viewer-relative perceptions insofar as they refer to
actions that are objectively morally evil, although appearing to be good.
One might understandably suppose that, as such, they are hardly salutary
examples of natural law whose principles are supposedly universally and
objectively correct. The bridge between subjective, viewer-relative
perception and objective moral law is found in spontaneous human
strivings, which Aquinas calls "primary principles: the inclination to
preserve one's life is the natural law ground for the prohibition of
murder; the attraction between the sexes is the natural law ground for
marriage and family; the inclination of humans to live together in society
is the natural law ground for justice since to live in society requires
respect for people" (Aquinas 1945: 775).
problem with abstract principles is that applying them in concrete
situations generates variables, the more concrete the situation, the more
variables. For example, it is one thing to get agreement on the statement,
"Murder is wrong," but quite another to find agreement on whether a
particular act of homicide counts as murder. It is one thing to get
agreement on the statement, "Stealing is wrong," but quite another to get
agreement when someone sneaks food from a grocery market to feed a
starving family. The moral virtues provide the bridge between the
principles of natural law ethics and proper action. The virtues of
justice, fortitude, and temperance give the agent the right ends to
pursue, while the virtue of prudence tells him what means to choose, in
the particular situation, to realize those ends (Aristotle 1941: 1026).
Knowing the proper means to a desired end is not the only thing needed for
virtuous action; one must also desire the end. Most important of all,
since ethics has its fulfillment not in thinking, but in acting, the
virtue of prudence does not simply show what means will lead to the
virtuous goal, it commands that they be used. It does not say, "It is
wrong to steal that person's wallet"; rather, it issues a command, "Do not
steal that wallet." Thus, virtuous behavior demands more than a
theoretical knowledge of which actions are to be done and which avoided;
one must possess the practical virtues to execute the decisions that a
virtuous person would make.
so smart, how could he get himself involved with Monica Lewinsky, when he
knew they were investigating him in the Paula Jones case?" So exclaimed an
obviously intelligent and educated panelist on a CNN talk show at the
beginning of the Clinton impeachment process. A common error in ethical
deliberation is the assumption that the criterion for judging whether
actions are moral or immoral is the same for judging whether statements
are true or false. The above question is a case in point. Its author
failed to understand that morality is not in the intellect, but in the
will. People frequently act contrary to what they know they ought and
ought not to do. The respective criteria for truth and action are
importantly different. The criterion for truth is conformity between
thought and thing. The statement, "It is raining out," is true, if it is
raining out. Its truth depends on actual meteorological conditions, which
is to say that those conditions, whatever they may be, exist independently
of whatever may be said about them.
obtains in ethics. The criterion for truth in moral action is the
conformity of the will to right desire (Simon 2002: 10). Unlike the
criterion for a true statement, the conformity is not between the agent
and a preexisting reality. On the contrary, the agent's choice creates the
reality, first, by altering the external state of affairs and affecting
others, and second, by either strengthening or weakening his or her
character. Thus, matching one's will to right desire requires more than
merely knowing how one ought to behave. To reiterate, one must desire to
behave according to right desire, and also possess the integration of
intellect, will, passion, and appetite to translate the desire to behave
according to right desire into acting according to right desire. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Plato's educational regimen for children
chosen to become philosopher-kings was to last a full thirty-five years,
consisting as much of character formation as intellectual acumen. Moral
virtue required the integration of all one's faculties--intellect, will,
passion, and appetite.
Aristotle, gave fuller articulation to the nature and requirements of
moral virtue by separating practical wisdom (phronesis) from
theoretical wisdom (sophia), thereby rejecting the Socratic
principle that no one deliberately does evil (1941: 1028-29). On the
contrary, Aristotle observed, just as one can know what medicine to take
and yet not take it, so one can know how one ought to act and yet fail to
act that way (1941: 956). As if to anticipate a criticism of Kantian
ethics, he insisted that one who has to struggle to resist the urge to
overindulge does not have the virtue of temperance, since the very
struggle betrays a lack of integration among his faculties (Aristotle
1941: 1050). One starts on the path of acquiring moral virtue by first
acting as a virtuous person would act until one can perform virtuous
actions easily and pleasurably. To avoid mistaking the mimicry of virtuous
action for the real thing, Aristotle held that the latter must have the
following three characteristics: (1) the agent must know what he is doing;
(2) he must choose the action for its own sake; (3) the act must proceed
from a fixed and permanent state of character (1941:
The popular conception of the penalty for
immoral behavior is some sort of physical, mental, or socio-economic harm
to oneself: excessive drinking causes liver damage or loss of employment;
lying leads to the loss of trust among one's family and associates, etc.
While no one would deny that those are undesirable outcomes, classical
moral theorists insisted that the price to be paid for immoral behavior is
worse: the loss of rational control. Some challenge the view that a chosen
immoral act is an expression of irrational behavior. Candace Vogler, for
example, sees no reason why one who successfully plans and performs
immoral acts on a regular basis in order to attain his or her goals cannot
be said to be acting rationally (2002: 40-41). But, she is clearly using
the word "rational" analogously. The agent's behavior is "rational" in the
sense that it is the result of sound deliberation and efficient
But, in the sense of rational
entertained by classical moral theorists, his or her behavior is
irrational because it cannot lead to the goal that everyone seeks. From
the subjective standpoint, the goal is happiness; from the objective
standpoint, the goal, according to Aquinas, say, is eternity in the
presence of God (Vogler 2002: 34). Socrates zeroed in on what makes the
actions of even the most successful of immoral people, the tyrant,
irrational. Having made his way to the top by lying, cheating, betraying,
and murdering, he can only associate with his own kind--liars, cheaters,
betrayers, and murderers. His own untrustworthiness condemns him to be
surrounded by deputies whom he cannot trust. More relevant, having failed
to integrate his appetites and passions with reason, the tyrant is now
held in thrall by his own unruly and self-destructive urges (Plato 1992:
So, there are at least two reasons why
Vogler's immoral agent does not act rationally. First, by a career of
immoral scheming and choosing, he has sold himself into slavery, riveting
his will to the evil rather than the good. Admittedly, his choices may be
called "rational" in the sense that his planning and acting are logically
derived from, and consistent with, his immoral attachments. But, that is a
different sense of "rational" from the sense of the word when applied to
moral behavior. Second, immoral choices have blinded him to the true state
of his life and circumstances. He may feel free, and believe he is acting
freely, but this is a merely subjective freedom, based on his belief that
his choices and actions are unrestrained. Like members of Huxley's Brave
New World, they are slaves living delusions of
Consider, for example, the virtue of
chastity, which is the cardinal virtue of temperance as the latter
pertains to sexual appetite. The term "chastity" is badly misunderstood.
The modern world identifies it with the prudish view that regards
sexuality with disdain and even fear; thus, one is chaste to the extent
that one is not sullied by sexual behavior. But, rather than pertaining to
a Gnostic or Manichean prudishness toward bodily functions, the
etymological roots of "chastity" refer to purity or clarity of vision in
matters of sexual behavior. The chaste person is one who sees the other
person for what he or she is, a being of dignity for whom appropriate
respect and justice are due. In contrast, one who has become enslaved by
the vice of lust no longer sees the other in a true light. Just as the
lion cannot appreciate the stag for its grace and beauty, but only as
food, so the lustful person can only see another person as a source of
sexual gratification (Pieper 1975: 166-67). Or, if the vice is greed, the
other is perceived as a source of monetary enrichment, and the like. Of
course, references to sight are meant to be analogical. The state of vice
does not blind one to the truth that the other is a human being, a person
for whom justice demands respect. But, to the extent that vice corrupts
reason, the focus on the other person is distorted by the desire for
The libertarian argument for the
legalization of drugs pinpoints the problem of freedom. The argument has
two prongs. The first is that attempts by federal and local authorities to
stanch the flow of drugs into America have been a spectacular failure
(Nadelman 2004: 1). The second is that a mentally competent adult has the
right to ingest whatever substance he or she chooses, as long as that
behavior does not violate the rights of others. But, would a permissive
government policy pertaining to the sale and use of narcotics produce a
better, or at least no worse, set of conditions for human flourishing? A
population lacking the virtue of temperance so that the majority of its
members make sensual gratification their criterion of valorization, can be
counted on to conclude, when voting for a political candidate or law, that
what guarantees that gratification is what is good for
THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM
The illusion reveals itself
in the inconsistency between the criticism of objective moral norms as the
fulfillment of personal freedom and the fact that living and acting
without moral virtue inevitably yokes one's will to one and the same
object of desire. The standard criticism of positive freedom is that the
demand that one act according to putative objective standards in order to
be free is to confuse freedom with things, which, however laudable--truth,
justice, beauty, goodness, or the law--are not what freedom is. The
criticism goes on to say that the confusion is dangerous, since it can
delude a population into believing that their adherence to those kinds of
lofty standards makes them free when it fact it allows an oppressive
regime to control their lives (Berlin 1961:
But a characteristic of the lack of
virtue, and surely of the state of vice, is the will's enslavement to a
specific object of desire. So, despite insisting that to be free, the
individual must have before him a range of options, the lack of virtue
produces the opposite: prospective choices are inevitably evaluated in
terms of their relation to the principal object of one's vice. Kant's
heteronomous man looks as though he chooses on the basis of a
consideration of options, but his will is necessitated to only one of
them--the object of his vice (1993: 45-48). From the viewpoint of a formal
consideration, the structure of the choice is like that of one who guides
his choices by moral virtue insofar as those choices are guided by a
standard external to his subjective self. But from the viewpoint of a
material consideration, the two could not be farther apart. The virtuous
agent chooses according to a rule of reason (orthos logos; recta
ratio) the locus of which is the organization of passions and
appetites according to reason.
The emergence of
liberal democracy signals a deepened understanding of the dignity and
freedom of the human person, the integrity of conscience, and the equality
of all human beings. But in a finite existence, to fill a hole, one must
dig a hole. For all its glories, liberal democratic theory has lost sight
of the individual's connection with the political community. Granting the
dangers inherent in Rousseau's theory that each individual is a
manifestation of the General will or Hegel's view that individuals are
microcosms of the State, or other totalitarian theories in which the
individual has no meaning or value apart from the state, liberal theory
seems to have traveled in the opposite direction, construing the
individual's relation to the political community primarily in utilitarian
terms. This has blinded liberal democracy to the meaning of Plato's
observation that "the State is man writ large": the moral condition of the
political community expresses the moral condition of its members. It would
be well to remember that Hitler and his Nazi Party gained control of
Germany following free elections.
freedom, especially the metaphysical version, poses threats to a people's
freedom to choose their own ends by imposing the state or a higher self as
one's true self, so that one is deluded into believing that by obeying the
law, one is really obeying oneself, negative freedom hardly offers a
better prospect. The possibility of a nation enslaved in their respective
and collective actions by their vices, but believing they act freely
because they do what they wish, is as disturbing as it is
Virtue ethics offers the solution to
the extent that it furnishes the standard for action based on
understanding and choice unhampered by un-disciplined passions and
appetites. For the virtuous person, freedom is negative in the truest
sense insofar as he or she enjoys a freedom from both external restraints
and the inner restraints of vice. That is the route to human flourishing,
both for self-fulfillment and preparation for citizenship. The argument
for a virtuous society must not be allowed to go begging. Thomas Aquinas
observed that after one loses the virtue of chastity, thereby succumbing
to the vice of lust, the next virtue to be lost is justice, the obligation
to pay each his due. That is because vice, being a malignancy,
metastasizes. First, there was the sexual revolution, accompanied by the
mainstream acceptance of pornography; then legalization of abortion on
request; and now the movement to legalize physician-assisted suicide and
infanticide (Verhagen & Sauer 2005: 960). The objectification of women
as sexual objects has led to the creation of a new social category: a
class of disposable people, to wit the unborn, the sickly and deformed,
and the elderly. Hardly a desirable policy for democratic societies,
regardless of whether they are procedural or formative polities. For if,
indeed, what the American people want most is the freedom to choose their
own goals, why do they not acknowledge that the freedom to kill the
innocent and defense-less contradicts any democratic freedom, for it is
the freedom of the strong against the weak who have no choice but to
submit (Pope John Paul II 1995: 28-29).
enduring ideal is a democracy that confers the widest latitude for
personal freedom on its members, the vast majority of whom, including
elected officials and judges, have characters shaped by a monistic virtue
ethics. The crucial question is, who has the responsibility of inculcating
ethics in society? The cackling of the sacred geese warned ancient Rome of
impending danger. Where are our geese?
Aquinas, Thomas. 1945. Basic
Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Vol.
1. Ed. Anton C. Pegis. New York: Random
Aristotle. 1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random
Berlin, Isaiah. 1961. Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Bogle, Joanna. 2007. England
Outlaws Catholic Teaching. National
Catholic Register (8-14 April): 1,
Bosanquet, Bernard. 1920. The Philosophical Theory of the State.
Dennehy, Raymond L. 1993. Bodenheimer's
Theory of Natural Law: The Conflict of a
Divided Intellectual Allegiance.
University of California (Davis) Law Review 26 (3): 619-52.
_____. 2006. Liberal
Democracy as a Culture of Death: Why John
Paul II Was Right. Telos 134
De Riggiero, Guido.
History of European Liberalism. Tr.
Robin G. Collingwood. Boston, MA: Beacon Hill Press.
Dewey, John. 1963a. Freedom
and Culture. New York: Capricorn Books.
_____. 1963b. Liberalism
and Social Action. New York: Capricorn Books.
Green, Thomas H. 1960. Lectures on
the Principles of Political Obligation. London: Longman's
_____. 1964. The Political Theory of T. H. Green. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1962. Hegel's
Philosophy of Right. Tr. Thomas M. Knox.
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Hittinger, Russell. 1990. Liberalism and
the Natural Law Tradition. Wake Forest
Law Review 25: 429-99.
Herbert. 1934. Challenge to Liberty. New York: Charles
Huxley, Aldous. 1966.
Brave New World. New York: Bantam
Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Tr. James W. Ellington.
Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Machiavelli, Nicolo. 2005.
The Prince. Tr./ed. William J. Connell. New York: St.
Maritain, Jacques. 1966.
Man and the State. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mill, John Stuart.
Liberty. London: Oxford University Press.
Murray, John Courtney.
Hold These Truths. New York: Sheed & Ward.
Murti, Vasu. 2006. The Liberal
Case Against Abortion. Mt. Laurel, NJ:
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 2004. An End to
Marijuana Prohibition. National
Review (12 July): 1-7.
Four Cardinal Virtues. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame
Plamenatz, John P. 1963. Man and Society. Vol. 1. New York:
Plato. 1992. The
Republic. Tr. George M. A. Grube. Rev. ed. C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Pope John Paul II. 1995. The Gospel
of Life. Vatican tr. New York: Times
Rorty, Richard. 1991. Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1: Objectivity, Relativism and Truth.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jacques. 1960. The Social Contract. In The Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume
and Rousseau. London: Oxford University Press.
Sabine, George H.
History of Political Theory. New York:
Sandel, Michael J. 1996. America's
Search for a New Public Philosophy. Atlantic Monthly (January): 57-74.
Schall, James. 1984. The
Politics of Heaven and Hell. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Arthur M., Jr. 1957. The Age of Roosevelt. Vols. I-II. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Simon, Yves R.
Critique of Moral Knowledge. Tr. Ralph
McInerny. New York: Fordham University Press.
2003. Virtue Ethics: A
Pluralistic Account. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Verhagen, Eduard &
Peter Sauer. 2005. The Groningen Protocol: Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns. New England Journal of Medicine 352 (10):
Vogler, Candace. 2002. Reasonably
Vicious. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Related Ignatius Insight Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:
The Scandal of Natural Law | Interview with J. Budziszewski
Pope Benedict XVI On Natural Law | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
Why the Bewilderment? Benedict XVI on Natural Law | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
Jacques Maritain and Dignitatis Humanae: Natural Law as the Common Language of Religious Freedom | Brian Jones, M.A.
The Religion of Liberalism, Or Why Freedom and Equality Aren't Ultimate Goals | An Interview with James Kalb
Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
The State Which Would Provide Everything | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
Philosophy and the Sense For Mystery | Josef Pieper
Peanuts and Thomists | Raymond Dennehy
The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
Why the Bewilderment? Benedict XVI on Natural Law | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
The State Which Would Provide Everything | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley
The Regensburg Lecture: Thinking Rightly
About God and Man | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
Dennehy is Professor
of Philosophy at the University of San Francisco.
After serving from 1954-58 as a radarman in the U.S. Navy aboard the heavy
cruiser, USS Rochester in the Pacific Theater of Operations, he attended
the University of San Fransisco, obtaining a B.A. in philosophy. He studied
philosophy in the graduate school of the University of California, Berkeley,
finally getting his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Toronto.
He is the author of Anti-Abortionist
at Large: How to Argue Intelligently about Abortion and Live to Tell About
It. (Go here
for reviews and excerpts.) His previous books are Reason and Dignity
and an anthology he edited, Christian Married Love. He is frequently
invited on radio and television programs, as well as university campuses,
to speak and debate on topics such as abortion, physician-assisted suicide,
He is married to Maryann Dennehy, has four children and eleven grandchildren.
If you'd like to receive the FREE IgnatiusInsight.com
e-letter (about every 1 to 2 weeks), which includes regular updates
about IgnatiusInsight.com articles, reviews, excerpts, and author appearances,
please click here to sign-up today!
| || || |