Table Of ContentA R G U M E N T S F O R
L I BE RT Y
edited by
Aaron Ross Powell & Grant Babcock
Arguments for Liberty Title Page.indd 3 11/7/16 10:02 AM
Copyright ©2016 by the Cato Institute.
All rights reserved.
eBook ISBN: 978-1-944424-13-8
Print ISBN: 978-1-944424-12-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available.
Cover design: Faceout.
Printed in the United States of America.
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
www.cato.org
101923_Copyright Page.indd 2 11/11/16 12:50 PM
C O N T E N T S
Introduction 1
Aaron Ross Powell and Grant Babcock
1. utilitarianism 9
Christopher Freiman
2 natural rights 49
Eric Mack
3. Kantianism 87
Jason Kuznicki
4. contractarianism 123
Jan Narveson
5. rawlsianism 161
Kevin Vallier
6. Virtue ethics 203
Mark LeBar
7. objectiVism 233
Neera K. Badhwar
8. ethical intuitionism 259
Michael Huemer
9. moral Pluralism 301
Jason Brennan
Recommended Readings 339
Contributors 351
Index 355
i
101923_TOC.indd 1 11/11/16 12:50 PM
Introduction
Aaron Ross Powell and Grant Babcock
If you value political liberty—or reject it in favor of, say, mate-
rial equality—you have reasons for doing so. Your reasons might
be unexamined or thought through, compelling or flimsy. When
we think rigorously about the reasons we believe what we believe
about morality and politics, we’re practicing philosophy. “Prac-
tical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct econ-
omist,” wrote John Maynard Keynes.
Similarly, many people, even most people, are the slaves of
some defunct philosopher. If you think your political beliefs are
simply based on “common sense” or “practicality,” you’re probably
not digging deep enough. What seems like common sense today
often turns out to be a once-controversial idea from the cutting
edge of philosophy decades or centuries ago. Thus, chances are
that your politics either originate with or have been thoroughly
examined and articulated by some philosopher.
1
101923_Ch00.indd 1 11/11/16 10:36 AM
ARGUMENTS FOR LIBERTY
In this book, nine philosophers give their reasons for believ-
ing that political liberty is the most moral and just system. But
they do so from within nine different schools of moral thought.
Although a single best moral and political philosophy might
exist, philosophers have been offering theories for at least 2,500
years and have yet to reach consensus. That doesn’t mean prog-
ress hasn’t been made. As libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick
reassuringly said, “There is room for words on subjects other than
last words.”
We assembled this book for two reasons. First, because freedom
matters. We are convinced that the only just political order is one
that enshrines liberty to the highest good. Second, because phi-
losophy matters. Libertarianism without philosophy is libertari-
anism without foundation. Without principle. It’s not enough to
have reasons for one’s political views. We need to understand those
reasons, to examine them, to critically evaluate them. We need to
appreciate not only why people might reject political liberty, but
also why those who embrace it do so—especially when they dis-
agree on reasons and foundations. Libertarians often argue about
philosophy. Recognizing and understanding the source of liber-
tarians’ differences helps us to better appreciate what it is they
hold in common, and reveals weaknesses that might otherwise
lie undiscovered and unaddressed. Having a more robust under-
standing of the philosophical foundations of liberty will better
enable those of us who seek to promote it to engage with our crit-
ics. And for liberty’s critics, better understanding the moral foun-
dations of liberty will help you argue more fruitfully and avoid
straw men.
2
101923_Ch00.indd 2 11/11/16 10:36 AM
IntroductIon
Arguments for Liberty is not an easy book, but neither is it a
book only for scholars and experts. The chapters don’t assume
the reader has a strong philosophy background, though some are
necessarily more complex than others, given the theories they’re
articulating. The chapters are written to stand on their own, and
they can be read in any order.
Each chapter begins by explaining its featured moral theory.
Then, it traces out the implications of that theory, arguing that
it is best understood to have libertarian conclusions in the realm
of politics. In some cases, that conclusion isn’t very controver-
sial among academic philosophers. For example, almost every-
one agrees that the moral theory espoused by Ayn Rand implies
libertarianism, or at least something very close. In other cases,
the opposite is true. John Rawls’s moral theory, considered in
Chapter 5, is usually thought to justify social democracy, not
libertarianism.
The book begins with the simplest theory, though its simplic-
ity is deceptive. Utilitarianism holds that the right thing to do is
whatever produces the most happiness, and in Chapter 1, Chris-
topher Freiman argues that, among competing political systems,
libertarianism best fits the bill.
In Chapter 2, Eric Mack takes up natural rights. If it is true that
humans, by our very nature, have certain rights that restrain how
we may treat one another, then governments, just like ordinary
people, must respect those rights.
In Chapter 3, Jason Kuznicki looks at arguably the most impor-
tant philosopher since the ancient era, Immanuel Kant. Kant
offered a moral theory grounded in reason and respect for the
3
101923_Ch00.indd 3 11/11/16 10:36 AM
ARGUMENTS FOR LIBERTY
separateness and dignity of each of us. Kuznicki shows how this
moral system points toward a government that does the same,
namely, a libertarian one.
If we gave everyone a say in which rules should govern society,
but they all had to agree on a single set, what would those rules
look like? In Chapter 4 on social contract theory, Jan Narveson
shows how the rules most likely to meet that standard would be
those supporting political liberty.
John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, which advanced a form of social
contract theory, revitalized political philosophy in the late 20th
century. Kevin Vallier shows in Chapter 5 how Rawls’s work,
both in that book and in his later Political Liberalism—although
often considered antithetical to libertarianism—can actually pro-
vide a compelling case for a robust system of political and eco-
nomic liberty.
Virtue ethics, explored by Mark LeBar in Chapter 6, is at once
the oldest and youngest theory in the book. First discussed by
the ancient Greeks, it largely disappeared from academic moral
philosophy until its revival in the mid-20th century. Virtue ethics
puts a person’s character at the center of moral theory. It asks what
traits enable a person to make good choices and live a good life. In
the realm of politics, it asks what institutions are most conducive
to this task.
Neera Badhwar discusses Ayn Rand’s theory of Objectivism
in Chapter 7. Rand’s Objectivist philosophy holds that political
liberty is the only system compatible with an appropriate under-
standing of the value of human life and the importance of human
reason.
4
101923_Ch00.indd 4 11/11/16 10:36 AM
IntroductIon
When facing moral questions in our everyday lives, most
of us don’t apply carefully constructed theories; instead, we go
with what our intuition tells us. In Chapter 8, Michael Huemer
develops this approach into a full theory of morality, known as
intuitionism, and shows how our moral intuitions expose the
immorality of most, if not all, of what governments do.
The book ends with Jason Brennan discussing pluralism, which
can be roughly seen as a theory that says all the other theories go
wrong in thinking that morality has an underlying framework.
The various theories get at important truths, but morality doesn’t
reduce to a unitary good, value, or set of rules. Brennan argues
that this imprecise but arguably more realistic account of morality
gives plenty of support for liberty.
Is it a problem that the authors disagree with each other about
fundamental moral questions? Are we stuck with ad hoc reason-
ing toward a desired conclusion—in this case, libertarianism?
We can talk about right and wrong on several levels. The con-
tributors to this volume agree, for the most part, at the level of
applied ethics—if you asked them some concrete questions about
specific situations or behaviors, they would answer in similar
ways. They would likely agree, for example, that the state can-
not legitimately ban recreational drugs, or censor a newspaper
critical of the president, or conscript people into the armed forces.
Yet they have disagreements. If you asked why the state cannot
legitimately ban recreational drugs, you would get very different
answers. The explanatory frameworks philosophers use to give
reasons for their moral judgments are called “moral theories.” The
chapter titles in Arguments for Liberty are all the names of moral
5
101923_Ch00.indd 5 11/11/16 10:36 AM
ARGUMENTS FOR LIBERTY
theories or of their inventors. Now, if you start asking questions
about moral theories—questions like, “What do terms in moral
theories, like good or justice, really mean?” or “How do we come to
have knowledge about moral theories?”—you’re asking questions
of a different kind. The subfield of philosophy dedicated to such
questions is called “metaethics.” The contributors to this volume
have diverging opinions about metaethics, just as they do about
moral theories. In some chapters, disagreements about metaethics
won’t matter much. In others—especially the chapter on intu-
itionism—these disagreements matter a lot.
Each chapter presents a different argument for liberty, not
because the authors are making things up to justify a predeter-
mined conclusion but rather because of good-faith disagreement
among them about issues in ethical theory and metaethics. Even
then, we shouldn’t count such disagreements against libertarian-
ism. There are similar disagreements about how to justify liber-
tarianism’s competitors, too.
You might find some or even all the moral theories presented
here unpersuasive. Does that mean that reading the chapters
about those theories was a waste of your time? We don’t think so.
Even if, for example, you don’t believe that maximizing human
happiness is the right way to think about morality, it would still be
useful to learn that libertarianism maximizes human happiness.
Likewise, it would still be useful to learn that libertarianism is
conducive to developing personal virtue, even if you think that’s
the wrong foundation for ethics.
Indeed, you may finish Arguments for Liberty thinking that lib-
ertarianism satisfies multiple theories of morality, even though
6
101923_Ch00.indd 6 11/11/16 10:36 AM
