Search results
May 25, 2006 · Nagel claims that I “ridicule” and “deride” Rawls’s view, and casts my disagreement with Rawlsian liberalism as a failure to understand it. I leave it to readers of Public Philosophy to judge for themselves whether anything I say about Rawls remotely approaches ridicule or derision.
Sep 22, 2021 · To be sure, I am not the first to note to Nagel’s liberalism. For example, Don Howard critically notes the strain of liberalism I identify in Nagel (and Nagel’s role in the professionalization of philosophy). But he too criticizes Nagel for giving up on science’s role in the “selection of ends”.
- Eric Schliesser
- 2022
People also ask
What does Nagel think about philosophy?
How does Nagel treat the reality of moral decline?
What philosophies did John Rawls & Thomas Nagel write?
What does Nagel say about Rawls?
Feb 5, 2024 · Nagel is on far surer ground when he contrasts the objective moral superiority of liberal society with the objective moral depravity of the Nazi and Bolshevik regimes than when he reflects on what he regards as the objectively absolute moral progress of a deontologically based liberalism and the objectively absolute moral catastrophe of its ...
Thomas Nagel ( / ˈneɪɡəl /; born July 4, 1937) is an American philosopher. He is the University Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University, [3] where he has taught since 1980, retiring in 2016. [4] His main areas of philosophical interest are legal philosophy, political philosophy, and ethics.
Nagel develops a clear, simple argument that lays out the basic institu-tional requirements and complementary political morality of Kantian liberalism. Nagel also deals pointedly, although much too succinctly, with two recurring criticisms of Kantian liberalism. At one extreme, hard-nosed consequentialists such as Professors Harel2 and Scheffler'3
THOMAS NAGEL Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy Robert Frost defined a liberal as someone who can't take his own side in an argument. A bit harsh, but there is something paradoxical about lib-eralism, at least on the surface, and something obscure about the foun-dations of the sort of impartiality that liberalism professes. That is what
THOMAS NAGEL'S DEFENCE OF LIBERAL NEUTRALITY. By SIMON CANEY. THOMAS between NAGEL different [1] argues conceptions that the of state the good should life. be He. commits himself to what has been called justificatory. the view that the state should not make policy on the basis that forms of life are superior to others [6]. In this paper I examine.
