"In other words, a Hobbesian state of nature -- and presumably a Rawlsian or a Nozickian or Dworkinian state of nature as well -- has to be nothing if not the nature of modern natural science. And from the point of view of modern science must be admitted to be wholly and completely amoral." page 10The state of nature that these philosophers refer to is simply the condition that human beings were in before they became subjects of governments or became citizens of civil societies. To confuse this meaning of the state of nature with the value-free methodology of modern science is an indication of stupidity or disingenuousness. If the methodology of science goes with the historical or hypothetical condition of no government, what methodology goes with civil society? We can't use the scientific point of view to analyze civil society because then, if we accept Veatch's assumption, civil society and the state of nature would both be equal to the same thing (science) and hence would be equal to each other. Veatch is annoying to read. His philosophy is trivial and question-begging.
Year Read: 1989
Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday
Back to Nonfiction Book Notes
Back to Fiction Book Notes
Back to Book Notes by Author
This page was last updated on October 3, 2011.
This site is maintained by Roy Halliday. If you have any comments or suggestions, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.