"Liberty is something you achieve. It is not an automatic given," philosopher Peter Kreeft told a Salomon 001 audience Friday afternoon during the Brown-Rhode Island School of Design Catholic Community's annual lecture.
Kreeft, an author and professor of philosophy at Boston College and the King's College, examined the nature and rudiments of liberty from a purely philosophical perspective. Although he grounded his argument in the work of the Ancient Greek virtue ethicists, he drew from the theories of 20th-century philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and C.S. Lewis. He also extensively quoted Thomas Aquinas.
An audience that included ministers in addition to students from Brown and Providence College watched Kreeft fill the chalkboard with an intricate diagram of philosophical definitions and explanations. At the center of the board, Kreeft wrote down what he called the four kinds of freedom: physical freedom, free will, liberty and political freedom. In his "ancient argument," Kreeft linked the concepts, saying there is no liberty without free will, and there is no free will without physical freedom.
But the "big question" is the nature of the tenets of liberty, Kreeft said. He drew a clear line between exterior and interior liberty, and consequently, between bondage and addiction.
Kreeft further refined his conception of liberty by describing its preconditions: free will, wisdom and virtue. In opposition to determinism — the belief that all human actions are already set — Kreeft paraphrased William James: "I will choose to believe in free will, thereby showing free will."
Still, Kreeft argued that free will needs to be supplemented by wisdom and virtue because not all decisions people make increase their liberty. "You can freely choose to sell yourself into slavery," Kreeft said, referring to both bondage and addiction.
Another key theme of his lecture was natural law. This higher law, informed by the divine will, cannot exist, Kreeft said, without moral realism — the belief that there are objective moral values. He said virtue was simply adherence to natural law. In defense of the existence of an objective set of moral precepts, Kreeft said, "Your desires can't possibly be the source of morality, because morality judges your desires."
Peter Simon '13, an audience member, asked if there was a difference between natural law and moral law. Kreeft replied affirmatively by mentioning that many atheists observe moral law. Simon said he was impressed by Kreeft, who "knows what arguments are out there and knows which ones are logical and which ones don't make sense."
After the lecture, Kreeft told The Herald that he believes modern politics lies somewhere in between the theory of the virtue-ethicists and that of more pragmatic philosophers such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. He described the political system as a "meritocracy based on intelligence."
Answers to conflict between pragmatism and moral virtue "can't come from government," he said, adding that individuals make up institutions, not the opposite.
Kreeft extensively referenced the Christian philosopher and writer Lewis when discussing natural law. He quoted Lewis' claim that civilizations which believe in natural law are the ones that, historically, have thrived the most and lasted the longest. According to Kreeft, Lewis also said that "moral subjectivism ... will certainly damn our souls and end our species."
In concurrence with Lewis, Kreeft said, "modern Western culture has ... increasingly turned away from the notion of natural law," something that "has never happened in history."
As a result of this refusal, he said, people will either disprove one of the most influential laws of humanity, crawl back to it or disappear from the earth.
ADVERTISEMENT
