Douglas J. Den Uyl – författare

How can we establish a political/legal order that in principle does not require the human flourishing of any person or group to be given structured preference over that of any other? Addressing this question as the central problem of political philosophy, Norms of Liberty offers a new conceptual foundation for political liberalism that takes protecting liberty, understood in terms of individual negative rights, as the primary aim of the political/legal order. Rasmussen and Den Uyl argue for construing individual rights as metanormative principles, directly tied to politics, that are used to establish the political/ legal conditions under which full moral conduct can take place. These they distinguish from normative principles, used to provide guidance for moral conduct within the ambit of normative ethics. This crucial distinction allows them to develop liberalism as a metanormative theory, not a guide for moral conduct. The moral universe need not be minimized or morality grounded in sentiment or contracts to support liberalism, they show. Rather, liberalism can be supported, and many of its internal tensions avoided, with an ethical framework of Aristotelian inspiration—one that understands human flourishing to be an objective, inclusive, individualized, agent-relative, social, and self-directed activity.

Tibor R. Machan, one of the most prolific and wide ranging philosophers of our time, has been known internationally for decades through his public speaking, opinion columns, and of course his scholarly writing. This collection of essays seeks to explore Machan’s philosophical ideas by considering some of the basic issues with which he has been concerned throughout his long and highly productive career. The essays range from those concerned with the nature of reality and knowledge to those dealing with the nature of the political/legal order. Topics such as the character of human nature, free choice and responsibility, the justification of individual rights, and the place of justice in the contemporary welfare state—among other basic issues—are discussed in these essays. Because Machan himself dealt with questions of central importance, the essays should appeal to a wide range of interests and disciplines in philosophy and related fields. But the essays are also written by people accomplished in their own right and thus seek not only to comment on Machan, but to make their own contribution to enduring philosophical issues. The volume should be of value to both students and faculty alike.

"Liberty and Nature - an Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order" describes the manner in which Aristotle's way of thinking has normally been understood as hostile to modern liberal, pluralistic, and commercial society. In opposition to this prevailing view, the authors set out to show that the Aristotelian approach to ethics supports the natural rights which forms the most secure basis for liberal principles. Rasmussen and Den Uyl lay the foundations of their thesis by rebutting the most prominent arguments against the Aristotelian approach; they then offer a new interpretation of the basic nature of Aristotelian ethics as a natural-end ethics in which the human flourishing is the ultimate moral standard. "Liberty and Nature" examines the concept of the common good in the light of theory of rights. The Aristotelian claim that the function of the state is the promotion of the common good is consistent with the Lockean claim that the function of the state is to protect the natural right to liberty in all its forms, for "the common good of a political community need not be a single goal that all men must strive to attain.Rather, the common good need only be that set of conditions that allows for the well-being and self-actualization of the community's members". The authors provide a close analysis of the relation between Aristotelian friendship and commercial transactions. They also compare their own theory with alternative defences of liberal social orders.

Contemporary political philosophy e.g. Martha Nussbaum, John Rawls and Amartya Sen tries to separate itself from other philosophical positions and frameworks. Now, Den Uyl and Rasmussen challenge this trend by moving away liberalism to what they call `individualistic perfectionism , creating a powerful new way to think about ethics.

Liberalism is today under serious intellectual attack. It is said to undermine its own principles, to have lost any strong claims to universal validity, and to foster injustice and inhumanity. Liberalism is associated with Enlightenment thought and is considered by some as an outmoded political philosophy. Professors Rasmussen and Den Uyl take up this challenge to liberalism. They show that liberalism is not locked into traditional ways of understanding itself and has the capacity to enrich itself by intellectual traditions not usually associated with liberalism.Unlike much of liberalism, which defends its politics by resorting to either moral skepticism or moral minimalism, Rasmussen and Den Uyl employ a distinction between normative and “metanormative” principles. The latter are more directly tied to politics and concern principles that establish social/political conditions under which full moral conduct can take place. Thus it is not necessary to minimize the moral universe to support liberalism. Rasmussen and Den Uyl support their distinction through a novel use of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, and they show the importance of this distinction when they specifically address the positions of two leading critics of liberalism - John Gray and Alasdair MacIntyre.

Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl maintain that a realist turn—namely, one in which the natural order is the basis for individual rights—is needed to bring about a proper understanding and defense of liberty. They argue that the critical character of individual rights results from their being tethered to metaphysical realism. After reprising their explanation and defense of natural rights, Rasmussen and Den Uyl explain metaphysical realism and defend it against neo-pragmatist objections.  They show it to be a formidable and preferable alternative to epistemic constructivism and crucial for a suitable understanding of ideal theory.