How can Austrian Economics be reconciled with the Neo-Aristotelian philosophy of Freedom and Flourishing?

 This is a guest essay by Dr Edward W. Younkins.

Ed is Professor of Accountancy and Business at Wheeling University, and Executive Director of its Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Morality. He is author of a trilogy of important books on freedom and flourishing: “Capitalism and Commerce”, “Champions of a Free Society”, and “Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society”. My review of that trilogy is included among references listed among suggestions for further reading at the end of Ed’s essay.

Ed has numerous other publications, including an essay reviewing books by David L. Norton, which was published here in January and a review of Chris Matthew Sciabarra’s book “Total Freedom” published here in July. 

Ed Younkins writes:  

The pursuit of human flourishing—what Aristotle termed eudaimonia—stands as a central concern of both philosophical inquiry and economic science. At first glance, the Austrian economic tradition, with its emphasis on subjective value and methodological individualism, might appear incompatible with neo-Aristotelian philosophies like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J.  Den Uyl's "individualistic perfectionism," which assert the objectivity of human values. Yet, upon deeper examination, these traditions reveal profound compatibilities and complementary insights that provide a more robust framework for understanding human freedom, social cooperation, and the conditions for prosperity. This synthesis offers a powerful intellectual foundation for what could be termed "flourishing individualism"—the view that individuals possess an objective nature whose perfection requires specific social, political, and economic conditions, most notably freedom.

The Austrian School of economics and the neo-Aristotelian philosophy of freedom and flourishing share profound philosophical and methodological affinities. Both frameworks emphasize individual agency, moral responsibility, and the dynamic process of human flourishing in a world of uncertainty and choice. Although Austrian economists such as Ludwig von Mises typically maintain that values are subjective, and neo-Aristotelians assert that values are objective in a moral sense, these positions are not incompatible when understood as operating on different levels of analysis: the praxeological versus the ethical. Both perspectives converge on the centrality of rational agency, the importance of practical wisdom, and the moral necessity of liberty for human flourishing. This essay explores these convergences, demonstrating that Austrian economics and the neo-Aristotelian ethical framework together form a mutually enriching paradigm of freedom and flourishing.

 The Foundations of Austrian Economics

Austrian economics emerged in the late nineteenth century with Carl Menger’s Principles of Economics (1871), which emphasized methodological individualism, subjectivism, and the causal-realistic method. Menger held that value originates in the human mind’s recognition of the usefulness of goods for achieving desired ends. Later thinkers such as Ludwig von Mises (1949), Friedrich Hayek (1948), and Israel Kirzner (1973) expanded this foundation, emphasizing purposive human action (praxeology), the coordinating role of the price system, and the discovery process of entrepreneurship. Mises’s Human Action presents economics as a deductive science grounded in the axiom that “man acts purposefully” (Mises 1949). Human action, for Mises, is always rational in the instrumental sense—it involves the use of means to achieve chosen ends under conditions of uncertainty.

Israel Kirzner added to this framework by introducing the concept of entrepreneurial alertness. Entrepreneurs notice opportunities for profit that others have overlooked, thereby correcting market errors and coordinating dispersed knowledge. Kirzner’s entrepreneur is a creative, forward-looking agent who exercises alertness, judgment, and initiative—traits that closely parallel the Aristotelian notion of phronesis, or practical wisdom (Kirzner 1973). In both frameworks, knowledge, creativity, and prudence are essential for navigating the complexities of real-world decision-making.

Neo-Aristotelian and Objectivist Ethics of Flourishing

The neo-Aristotelian philosophy of Rasmussen and Den Uyl, articulated in Norms of Liberty (2005), The Perfectionist Turn (2016) and The Realist Turn (2020) seeks to develop a liberal political order grounded in the ethics of individual perfectionism. They argue that moral value is objective and grounded in human nature: flourishing (eudaimonia) is the natural end of human beings as rational and social agents. Moral principles are thus derived from the requirements of human flourishing, not from arbitrary preferences. Rand’s Objectivism similarly holds that reason is man’s means of survival, that values are objective, and that rational self-interest is the proper moral code (Rand 1964).

Rasmussen and Den Uyl distinguish between self-perfection—the moral ideal of living rationally and virtuously—and self-directedness, the political condition that makes self-perfection possible. Rights, in their account, protect the liberty necessary for individuals to pursue their own perfection in diverse ways. Their framework, like Rand’s, integrates metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics to yield a view of human beings as rational, volitional agents who must exercise practical reason to flourish.

 Subjective and Objective Value: Distinct Spheres of Analysis

One of the most frequently discussed issues in relating Austrian economics to neo-Aristotelian ethics concerns the apparent conflict between Misesian subjectivism and Aristotelian or Objectivist views about value. Mises maintains that “value is subjective,” meaning that economic value arises from individual preferences and choices; there are no objective economic values apart from subjective evaluations by acting persons. Rand and Rasmussen and Den Uyl, by contrast, hold that moral values are objective because they are grounded in the requirements of human life and flourishing. However, as Kathleen Touchstone (2015) and I (2011) have argued, these positions refer to different levels of analysis and are not contradictory.

This subjectivism is epistemological and economic, not moral. Mises did not claim that values are morally relative; rather, he argued that economics must remain value-free to maintain scientific rigor. Mises’s subjectivism pertains to the preferences individuals express in their actions, not to the truth or falsity of moral claims. Austrian economics thus provides a descriptive account of human behavior, focusing on how individuals allocate scarce resources to achieve their goals.

In the praxeological sense, subjectivity refers to the agent-relative nature of preference: each individual chooses based on his or her own hierarchy of ends. In the ethical sense, objectivity refers to the fact that some ends are objectively better than others for human flourishing. Austrian economists do not deny that there may be objective criteria for human well-being; rather, economics as a value-free science abstains from ethical judgments. Thus, Austrian subjectivism is methodological, not moral. Neo-Aristotelian philosophies,  in turn, concern moral evaluation, not economic explanation. The two frameworks, therefore, are compatible and complementary.

In contrast to the Austrian position, Rand's Objectivism maintains that values are objective, meaning they are "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind."  Values are not created by whim or social convention but are discovered through rational inquiry into the requirements of human life. As Peikoff (1991) explains Rand's ethics, "the fundamental alternative at the base of value is life versus death. Since human beings do not survive automatically, but by the use of reason, the standard of value is not mere survival, but rational flourishing."  From this perspective, something is objectively valuable if it genuinely promotes human life and flourishing according to man's nature as a rational being.

Similarly, Rasmussen and Den Uyl's individualistic perfectionism, while acknowledging the diversity of flourishing paths, maintains that human flourishing serves as an objective standard for ethics. They define human flourishing as objective, inclusive, individualized, agent-relative, self-directed, and social. A person's flourishing is desired because it is desirable and choice-worthy.  The objectivity resides in the factual requirements for human flourishing, while the specific instantiation varies according to individual circumstances, talents, and choices.

The resolution to this apparent contradiction lies in recognizing that these theories operate at different levels of analysis. The Austrian subjective theory of value explains how economic calculation and market prices emerge from individual preferences in the context of scarcity. The neo-Aristotelian objective theory of value explains how certain goods, virtues, and institutions reliably promote human flourishing given human nature. The neo-Aristotelian sense of value-objectivity complements the Austrian sense of value-subjectivity because personal flourishing on an objective level transcends subjective value preferences.

 Entrepreneurship, Practical Wisdom, and Eudaimonia

The Austrian entrepreneur and the Aristotelian practically wise person share deep conceptual similarities. Kirzner’s entrepreneur acts under uncertainty, perceives opportunities, and exercises judgment and creativity—traits essential to human flourishing. Likewise, Aristotelian phronesis involves rational deliberation about means and ends in the pursuit of eudaimonia. Both require sensitivity to context, adaptability, and the courage to act amidst uncertainty.

Rasmussen and Den Uyl (2005) describe flourishing as a self-directed activity of reason, while Kirzner (1973) and Mises (1949) describe the market process as an open-ended discovery procedure. Both perspectives view human action as purposive and guided by reason. The Austrian view of entrepreneurship provides a dynamic understanding of how individuals realize their plans within institutional frameworks, which aligns with the Aristotelian conception of practical wisdom as context-sensitive, agent-centered reasoning.

Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s Individualistic Perfectionism builds on Aristotelian ethics to defend a liberal political order. They argue that human flourishing (eudaimonia) is agent-relative and pluralistic, requiring liberty for individuals to pursue their own good. Their philosophy emphasizes practical wisdom (phronesis), the capacity to deliberate well about how to live.

Rand’s rational egoism and Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s agent-relative flourishing both affirm the moral legitimacy of self-interest. Austrian economics shows how self-interest, when channeled through markets, leads to mutual benefit. As Kathleen Touchstone argues, “Practical reason can be aligned with self-interest in a way that promotes both personal and social good.” This alignment reinforces the idea that liberty is not only economically efficient but morally justifiable.

This aligns closely with Austrian economists’ view of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs exercise alertness and judgment in navigating uncertainty and making context-sensitive decisions. As Benjamin Powell and Rosolino Candela (2014) have shown, entrepreneurial action is a form of practical reasoning, akin to Aristotelian phronesis. Both traditions recognize that flourishing requires freedom, creativity, and contextual judgment.

In both frameworks, success depends on alertness to opportunity—economic or moral. The morally flourishing individual, like the entrepreneur, must remain open to new information, creatively respond to change, and act on rational insight. This parallel suggests that the Aristotelian notion of practical wisdom and the Austrian idea of entrepreneurial alertness describe complementary dimensions of human rationality: moral and economic.

Both traditions recognize that practical wisdom and entrepreneurial judgment are necessary precisely because human beings face genuine uncertainty and operate with limited knowledge. The Austrian emphasis on the market as a discovery procedure for mobilizing dispersed knowledge complements the neo-Aristotelian recognition that human flourishing requires practical wisdom precisely because we cannot have algorithmic certainty about how to live well. As Kathleen Touchstone observes in her comparison of Rand and the Austrians, the recognition of death's inevitability plays a crucial role in establishing life as the ultimate value, highlighting the finitude that makes choice meaningful.  Our limited time and knowledge make both economic and ethical judgment necessary and meaningful.

Liberty as the Political Prerequisite for Flourishing

Both Austrian economists and neo-Aristotelians maintain that liberty is the indispensable precondition for human flourishing. For Mises and Hayek, economic freedom allows individuals to coordinate dispersed knowledge and discover better ways to achieve their goals. For Rand, Rasmussen, and Den Uyl, moral self-perfection requires the freedom to act on one’s rational judgment without coercion. The rule of law and private property thus provide the institutional context within which individuals can exercise moral and entrepreneurial agency.

Many economists have shown that economic liberty correlates strongly with prosperity and well-being, but beyond material benefits, liberty also enables moral growth, Freedom is valuable not only as a means but also as a necessary condition for self-responsibility and virtue. The Austrian and neo-Aristotelian perspectives converge in seeing liberty as both an epistemic and a moral requirement—a framework that respects the dignity of human choice and the moral significance of self-directedness.

The Austrian understanding of the market as a spontaneous order—an emergent pattern of cooperation that results from human action but not human design—provides an economic justification for the political framework defended by neo-Aristotelian philosophers. The result of these combined perspectives is a powerful moral and political framework that answers the challenge of modern pluralism without surrendering the objectivity of value. It is a theory that preserves the ethical centrality of virtue and the reality of human goods while insisting on the primacy of liberty and individual responsibility.

 Human Action, Rational Agency, and the Unity of Knowledge

Austrian economics and the neo-Aristotelian philosophy share a common anthropological foundation: human beings as rational, purposive agents. Mises’s praxeology and Aristotle’s practical philosophy both begin from the recognition that action is purposeful and intelligible. Barry Smith (1990) has argued that Mises’s praxeological categories correspond closely to Aristotelian metaphysical concepts: means, ends, causality, and teleology. This correspondence suggests that Austrian economics, though methodologically individualist, is compatible with a broader realist metaphysics of human nature.

Rand’s Objectivism likewise rests on a realist ontology and a teleological conception of life. Human reason is a means of survival, and moral virtue is the consistent choice to act in accordance with reason. Rasmussen and Den Uyl (2016) extend this insight by emphasizing that the moral self is a “self-perfecting agent” whose flourishing requires both internal rational order and external social liberty. The Austrian theory of the market as a spontaneous order complements this moral vision: both rely on the creative, adaptive rationality of individuals operating within an open-ended, complex world.

Self-Interest, Practical Reason, and Moral Responsibility

In both Austrian and neo-Aristotelian thought, self-interest is rational and morally legitimate. For Mises, self-interest is inherent in human action: individuals act to remove felt uneasiness and improve their conditions. For Rand, self-interest is the moral expression of the objective requirements of human life. Rasmussen and Den Uyl reinterpret self-interest in terms of self-perfection: the pursuit of moral virtue and excellence as expressions of one’s nature as a rational being.

Practical reason (phronesis) guides this pursuit by integrating knowledge, experience, and judgment in concrete circumstances. Similarly, the Austrian entrepreneur uses reason to identify and pursue profit opportunities, which represent the coordination of subjective values through voluntary exchange. This coordination process can be seen as a form of social learning in which individual discovery contributes to mutual benefit. Both frameworks thus ground moral and economic order in the creative, purposive activity of rational agents.

 Harmony Between Ethics and Economics

Austrian economics and neo-Aristotelian ethics are not separate silos but complementary aspects of a unified understanding of human life. Economic science explains how individuals interact within markets to achieve their diverse ends, while ethical philosophy clarifies which ends are worthy of pursuit. Together they yield a comprehensive view of the human person as a self-responsible, rational being whose flourishing depends on freedom, virtue, and creativity.

It could be argued that integrating these perspectives results in a “humanomics” of flourishing—a science of man that recognizes the inseparability of moral and economic dimensions of action. (Rasmussen 2024-25) Freedom provides the institutional framework; virtue provides the moral compass; entrepreneurship provides the practical engine of progress. Each reinforces the others in a mutually supportive system.

Conclusion: Toward a Paradigm of Freedom and Flourishing

The intellectual convergence between Austrian economics and neo-Aristotelian philosophy represents more than an academic curiosity. It offers a comprehensive framework for understanding human flourishing under conditions of freedom that integrates insights from ethics, economics, and political theory. Their complementarity arises from addressing different but interconnected aspects of the human condition: the Austrian tradition explaining how social cooperation emerges from individual choices under specific institutional arrangements, and the neo-Aristotelian tradition explaining what constitutes a well-lived life for the individual choosing agent.

Rand admired Mises and the Austrian school, praising their defense of capitalism and critique of central planning. She ranked Mises among history’s intellectual giants and featured favorable reviews of his works in her publications. However, she rejected Mises’s value subjectivism, insisting that values must be grounded in objective reality. For Rand, values are not arbitrary preferences but facts of reality that reflect the requirements of human life.

Yet, as scholars like Robert Tarr have noted, this apparent conflict dissolves when we recognize that Mises and Rand operate at different levels of analysis. Mises’s subjectivism pertains to economic behavior, while Rand’s objectivism addresses moral philosophy. As Tarr puts it, “The Austrian and Objectivist views of value are not contradictory but complementary when properly contextualized.” Austrian economics describes how individuals act; Objectivism prescribes how they ought to act.

The resolution of the apparent conflict between subjective and objective value through different levels of analysis enriches both traditions, allowing economists to acknowledge the purpose-serving nature of market activity while enabling philosophers to recognize the institutional prerequisites for virtue. The connection between entrepreneurial judgment and practical wisdom highlights the moral dimension of economic creativity while acknowledging the cognitive demands of both economic and ethical excellence. The defense of political and economic freedom as essential for human flourishing provides a shared normative foundation for evaluating social institutions.

This synthesis finds eloquent expression in the work of scholars who explicitly aim to forge an understanding from various disciplines and to integrate them into consistent, coherent, and systematic whole. The goal is to have a paradigm in which the views of reality, human nature, knowledge, values, action, and society make up an integrated whole. This integrated perspective acknowledges what Rasmussen and Den Uyl (2016) identify as the "tethered character of political philosophy" to deeper metaphysical and ethical frameworks.

Perhaps most importantly, this integrated perspective reminds us that economics and philosophy ultimately serve the same end: understanding and promoting the conditions for human flourishing. The economic creativity unleashed by markets and the ethical excellence cultivated through virtue represent complementary aspects of what can be identified as flourishing and happiness in a free society.  By recognizing their compatibility and complementarity, we can move closer to an integrated understanding of human freedom that enables individuals to realize their highest potential through reason, practical wisdom, and voluntary cooperation.

The convergence of Austrian economics and neo-Aristotelian perfectionism reveals a coherent philosophical paradigm that integrates economics, ethics, and politics around the concept of rational human agency. Austrian economics contributes a dynamic, subjectivist understanding of market coordination and entrepreneurial discovery. Neo-Aristotelian and Objectivist ethics provide an objective, normative account of human flourishing and moral responsibility. Far from being incompatible, the subjective and objective dimensions of value illuminate different aspects of the same reality: human beings as valuers and choosers in a world of possibilities.

By recognizing their compatibility, scholars can move toward a richer, interdisciplinary synthesis—one that unites Misesian praxeology with Aristotelian virtue ethics, Kirznerian entrepreneurship with practical wisdom, and Randian self-interest with moral responsibility. This synthesis provides a powerful conceptual framework for understanding human life as a process of rational self-direction within a free society. It is, ultimately, a paradigm of freedom and flourishing.

 Recommended Reading

Bates, Winton. 2024. “The Vision of Ed Younkins’s Trilogy on Freedom and Flourishing” The Savvy Street.  (May 15).

Block, Walter. 2005. “Ayn Rand and Austrian Economists: Two Peas in a Pod” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol.6 No 2; 259-269.

Boettke, Peter J. 2019. “Mises, Rand, and the Twentieth Century” in Gregory Salmieri and Robert Mayhew, Foundations of a Free Society: Reflections on Ayn Rand’s Political Philosophy.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Candela, Rosolino A. 2018. “The Socialist Calculation Debate and its Normative Implications in Austrian Economics” The Next Generation: 29-44

Den Uyl, Douglas J. and Douglas B. Rasmussen. 2016. The Perfectionist Turn: From Metanorms to Metaethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Ebeling, Richard M. 2021. “The Case for Freedom in Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand”.  Future of Freedom (January).

Johnsson, Richard C. B..2005. “Subjectivism, Intrinsicism and Apriorism: Rand Among the Austrians”. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol.6 No.2: 317-335.

Kirzner, Israel M. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Menger, Carl. 1871. Principles of Economics. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1949. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pauls, Theodore N. 2025 “What Do Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives tell us about Flourishing Individualism?” Freedom and Flourishing (June 24).

Peikoff, Leonard. 1991. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton

Powell, Benjamin and Rosolino Candela. 2014. “Markets as Processes of Moral Discovery” Studies in Emergent Order. Vol.7: 258-272.

Rand, Ayn. 1964. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet.

Rasmussen, Douglas B. 2024-25 “Homo Agens and Homo Moralis in Humanomics”. The Independent Review. (Winter).

Rasmussen, Douglas B., and Douglas J. Den Uyl. 2005. Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Douglas J. Den Uyl. 2020, The Realist Turn: Repositioning Liberalism Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, Barry. 1990. “Aristotle, Menger, Mises: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Economics.” History of Political Economy 22 (3): 683–706.

Tarr, Robert. 2019."Economic Theory and the Conceptions of Value: Rand and the Austrians versus the Mainstream”. In Gregory Salmieri and Robert Mayhew, Foundations of a Free Society: Reflections on Ayn Rand’s Political Philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 327-380.

Touchstone, Kathleen. 2015. “Rand and the Austrians: The Ultimate Value and the Non-interference Principle”. Libertarian Papers. 7 No.2, 169-204.

Touchstone, Kathleen. 2020.  Freedom, Eudaemonia, and Risk: An Inquiry into the Ethics of Risk-Taking.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Younkins, Edward W. 2005. ‘Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 6 no.2 Spring: 337-74.

Younkins, Edward W. 2011. Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society: Toward a Synthesis of Aristotelianism, Austrian Economics, and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Why did Aristotle view leisure as a fundamental aspect of a well-lived life?

 

Leah Goldrick answers the question posed above in this guest essay. The essay was first published on Common Sense Ethics, Leah’s excellent blog.

Leah writes:

I've just finished reading Aristotle's Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life, by classicist Edith Hall. It's a great book that I would recommend for my readers, as Hall capitalizes on popular interest in ancient philosophy and substantive self-help. Aristotle addresses the issue of how to live a good life in his Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics, written in the fourth century BC. In Aristotle's Way, Hall codifies Aristotle's most important ideas on how we should live, addressing topics such as happiness, love, communication, and mortality, among others. 

Chapter Seven of Aristotle’s Way is all about Aristotle’s philosophy of leisure, which I think is one of the most interesting chapters, and that's what I'll be writing about in this post. If you want to read a review of the entire book, I recommend this one by Donald Robertson, since I'm focusing on only a part of it here. 

​Aristotle’s philosophy of leisure is tied to his broader understanding of human flourishing. Aristotle thought that most people tend to misuse leisure time if they haven’t learned how to spend it meaningfully, preferring instead to spend their non-working hours on trivial pleasures and amusements. However, learning to use leisure time for growth oriented pursuits can greatly improve our lives. Let's examine that idea in depth in the next sections.  
​

What is Aristotelian Leisure?

​Aristotelian leisure encompasses not just what we might think of as recreational activities today like hobbies and sports, but rather, everything broadly we do outside of work. This includes relaxation after work, eating and fulfilling other bodily functions, and amusements to avoid boredom. It also includes forming relationships with others, enjoying the arts, spending time on exercise and intellectual contemplation, crafts, civic association, and other beneficial and meaningful activities. For Aristotle, leisure isn’t simply about taking breaks or escaping from work; it's a fundamental aspect of a well-lived life.

At the core of Aristotle’s ethics is the concept of eudaimonia, translated as "flourishing" or "well-being." The ultimate human goal is living in accordance with reason and achieving a life of virtue. To reach eudaimonia, one must engage in activities that are fulfilling, meaningful, and promote personal growth. Leisure, in this context, is not a passive activity but is deeply connected to the active cultivation of one's intellect and virtues. In the Nichmeachean Ethics (Book X, 1176b) Aristotle writes: “To be always seeking after amusement is a sign of levity and not of a serious purpose.”

In today’s world, where leisure is often viewed as idle entertainment or seen merely as a break from work, the concept of Aristotelian leisure offers a richer and more profound understanding of what we should be doing with our time; leisure involves reflection, growth, and the pursuit of intellectual and moral development, not just passive distraction. Aristotle argues that leisure is the time in which we can engage in these activities, which allow us to connect to the highest aspects of our human nature. This could include philosophical conversation, artistic creation, or scientific inquiry. These activities are seen as valuable in themselves—not just as means to an end.

In essence, Aristotle’s view of leisure encourages us to think of it as time for self-improvement, exploration, and the cultivation of virtues, rather than merely a time to "rest" from work. Aristotle also believes that leisure is essential for cultivating friendships, which are vital for living a good life. In a sense, leisure time allows for the development of meaningful relationships, as people have time to engage in shared activities that promote mutual flourishing.

Work, Leisure and the Good Life

Aristotle obviously acknowledged that work and productive labor are necessary for survival, and most people in the ancient world that Aristotle inhabited worked tremendously hard. Aristotle also thinks that work can be virtuous if done with the right intentions.

Still, work is secondary to leisure in the Aristotelian sense. Moreover, work should not dominate a person’s life to the point where there is no room for leisure, because without leisure, a person is unable to engage in the activities that lead to personal fulfillment and virtue. Thinking about leisure this way can be a helpful antidote to the burnout many experience in the modern, work-centered culture.

From an Aristotelian perspective, you need not be defined by your job or career, but rather by what you choose to do with your non-working hours. This is good news for several reasons. First, the reality is that only a minority of people are lucky enough to be able to make a living doing what they love. Most of us will have work to get by, but it’s leisure that is truly important for a good life. So, it doesn’t matter if you aren’t totally satisfied with your career.

Best of all, even if you work a lot, you likely have more leisure time available to you than the average person in Aristotle's day. In ancient Greece, everything, even basic chores, had to be done by hand. By contrast, most people in the developed world today enjoy access to modern appliances and conveniences which free up more of our time for meaningful leisure.  

To wrap up the post here, Aristotle thought that how we spend our non-working hours defines who we are, the kind of life we will have, and the type of society we build. From this perspective, our leisure choices are more significant than we may realize. Spending our leisure time meaningfully helps us make sense of the world, experience growth, and contribute to something larger than ourselves. 

If you'd like to learn more about Aristotle's ideas on how to live well, I highly recommend reading Aristotle's Way.  

What role does political entrepreneurship play in institutional change?

 

One of the reasons I quoted that passage by Douglass North is because it mentions political entrepreneurship. I went looking for a quote from North in Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance because I was particularly impressed by that book when I first read it about 30 years ago. (The quoted sentence appears on page 87.)

As defined by North, institutions are “the rules of the game of society” that shape human interaction. He argued that formal institutions—such as constitutions, laws, and regulations—make up only a small proportion of the sum of constraints that shape choices. Informal constraints include codes of conduct, norms of behavior, conventions, and customs. They may be internalized in personal values, rather than imposed by others.

North acknowledged that political entrepreneurship plays a role in institutional change. He doesn’t have much to say about political entrepreneurship, but his analysis implies that political entrepreneurs may play an important role in reducing transactions costs associated with institutional change.

Path dependence and institutional stickiness

The transactions costs of institutional change are high because of the path dependence of institutions. As institutions evolve, ideologies tend to evolve to support them. Organizations and interest groups that have grown up under existing institutions often have a stake in maintaining them.  

The most important point I had remembered from reading Institutions … is that countries with similar formal institutions – constitutions, property rights etc. – can have vastly different economic performance outcomes if informal institutions (cultural settings) are different. Governments and international agencies that have sought to transplant formal institutions to foreign countries have been slow to recognize that point.

The implications of path dependence have been further explored by Peter Boettke, Christopher Coyne, and Peter Leeson in “Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics”, Chapter 6 in Culture of Economic Action, ed. Laura E. Grube and Virgil Henry Storr (2015).  The authors contend that the ability of a new institutional arrangement to take hold when it has been transplanted depends on that institutions status in relations to indigenous agents in the previous time period. They suggest that institutional transplants are unlikely to stick if they are inconsistent with indigenously introduced endogenous institutions.

The analytical framework used by Boettke et al is also relevant to considering the challenges faced by endogenous political entrepreneurs in bringing about institutional change.

Entrepreneurship (political and economic)

As discussed recently on this blog, political entrepreneurship has characteristics that differ from economic entrepreneurship. I suggested that it might be reasonable to assume that political entrepreneurs are motivated largely by the satisfaction they obtain from constructing ideological narratives and selling them, and from exercising the political power required to implement policies.

Nevertheless, there are similarities between political and economic entrepreneurship that become apparent when economic entrepreneurship is considered in a cultural context. In his article, “The discovery and interpretation of profit opportunities and the Kirznerian entrepreneur”, reproduced as Chapter 3 of Culture and Economic Action (cited above), Don Lavoie writes:

“Entrepreneurship necessarily takes place within culture, it is utterly shaped by culture, and it fundamentally consists in interpreting and influencing culture.” (p. 50)

He suggests:

“entrepreneurship is the achievement not so much of the isolated maverick who finds objective profits others overlooked as of the culturally embedded participant who picks up the gist of a conversation.” (p. 51)

Later, he observes:

“Most acts of entrepreneurship are not like an isolated individual finding things on beaches; they require effort of the imagination, skillful judgements of future costs and revenue possibilities, and an ability to read the significance of complex social situations.”

In the following chapter of Culture and Economic Action, Virgil Henry Storr and Arielle John suggest that rather than viewing Lavoie’s contribution as a critique of Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship it is more appropriate to view it as a suggestion as to how that theory may be fruitfully amended. The amendments suggested by Lavoie seem to me to make the role of the economic entrepreneur seem similar in some respects to the role of a political entrepreneur.

Max Weber’s understanding of political entrepreneurship

Douglass North seems to have given minimal acknowledgement of Max Weber’s work as a social theorist, even though there was considerable overlap in their areas of interest.  Francesca Trivellato has noted that in one publication North does refer to Weber as a scholar of “the role of belief and values in shaping change”. Weber is, of course, most often remembered for his theory of the Protestant ethic but he also made other important contributions.

Weber’s writings on charismatic and demagogic leadership shed some light on the nature of political entrepreneurship in democracies. The following points summarize an article by Xavier Márquez, entitled “Max Weber, demagogy and charismatic representation”, published in the European Journal of Political Theory (2024).

• Weber argued that effective leaders must be able to fight for ‘causes’ beyond the narrow immediate interests of economic groups or party organisations and thus to struggle against the impersonal forces of bureaucratization (the subsumption of politics under bureaucratic and technical imperatives). Effective leaders must therefore have a charismatic form of authority – the only form of authority capable of overcoming the constraints of organisation, legality and tradition.
• The need to appeal to mass publics in modern democratizing societies selects for leaders who have a talent for mobilising large groups of people through rhetorical means. In the context of mass politics, charismatic authority manifests as demagogy. Weber thinks of the masses as unorganized and irrational and argues that even ‘democratically’ elected leadership is a form of ‘dictatorship which rests on the exploitation of the emotionality of the masses.
• Weber's praise for charismatic and demagogic leadership is tempered by the worry that political leaders must also be responsible. This is so in a twofold sense: objectively, a political system must be able to hold leaders accountable for their actions; and subjectively, leaders must display an ethics of responsibility, and thus be able to ‘take responsibility’ for their actions.
• Elections formalize the recognition of charisma. If charismatic leaders capable of mobilizing and representing broad masses will tend to arise in any case, it is better if the recognition of their charisma is subject to periodic formal tests rather than informal, extra-legal events.
• Charismatic authority in the broadest sense tends to appear in moments of deep, even existential crisis, where the charismatic leader performs a ‘miracle’ for a group that feels otherwise impotent and deeply threatened, and can sustain itself only when the leader can provide such ‘miracles.
• The charismatic demagogue produces a wondrous or miraculous representation of the people as a charismatic community but also a ‘wondrous’ representation of himself.
• Weber argues that charismatic leaders must provide evidence of benefiting their charismatic community if they are to retain their authority. The implicit ‘bargain’ between leaders and followers that exists even in cases of strong charismatic authority allows us to speak of a degree of accountability and influence.
• Instead of distinguishing between the ‘mere’ demagogue and its antithesis, the statesman, in terms of whether or not they deceive the demos or act for the common good, Weber stresses the ethical distinction between the politician who is responsible for their cause, and thus capable of intentionally and rationally directing state power towards its achievement (in what is, strictly speaking, a value–rational way), and the politician who is not.
• Lack of objectivity (wishful thinking, extreme overconfidence, ignoring inconvenient information) in assessing a situation leads to irresponsible political action, insofar as it leads to a misunderstanding of the means necessary to achieve particular ends and the physical, social and political constraints on the use of such means. All leaders are susceptible to these vices, but the situation of the charismatic demagogue, surrounded by adoring followers and capable of summoning the adulation of crowds, makes these vices extremely common occupational hazards.
• Weber hoped that training in committee or party work would hone the political judgement of leaders so that they would be more likely to see the consequences of their decisions and to take responsibility for them. 

Márquez argues that Weber's conception of charismatic authority allows some demagogues to play a genuinely democratic role in modern societies when viewed through contemporary theories of representation. He suggests that a Weberian analysis of democracy points to the need for strong accountability mechanisms and for institutions that socialize potential leaders into productive habits of adversarial conduct and responsibility, while preventing easy ‘buck passing’.

Márquez observes that although Weber provides a stronger sense of democratic possibility than did Joseph Schumpeter, he is very much the ancestor of the ‘minimalist’ model of democracy that Schumpeter first articulated explicitly in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. (I wrote about Schumpeter’s model of democracy here in 2012.)

Directions of future research

This essay is the second in a series in which I am attempting to obtain a better understanding of political entrepreneurship. The first essay can be found here.

My next step is to read Robert Faulkner’s book, The Case for Greatness (2007). I am wondering whether the ancients thought it was possible for a charismatic demagog to also be a "great-souled" leader who is keen to promote liberty and opportunities for individuals to flourish. 

After that, I will consider how the concept of political entrepreneurship fits in with modern public choice literature.

Summary and Conclusions

This essay briefly considers the context in which political entrepreneurship is most relevant, some similarities between economic and political entrepreneurship, and the role of charismatic and demagogic leadership in political entrepreneurship within democracies.

The essay begins by considering the role that Douglas North saw for political entrepreneurship in bringing about institutional change – i.e. change in the rules of the game of society. Political entrepreneurship is required to overcome high transactions costs of change that arise from the path dependent nature of institutions. Building on the concept of path dependency, Peter Boettke, Christopher Coyne and Peter Leeson developed an analytical framework to consider the consequences of institutional stickiness for foreigners engaged in institution building exercises that seek to transplant institutions from one country to another. That framework is also relevant to considering the challenges faced by political entrepreneurs seeking to bring about institutional reforms in their own countries.

The essay then turns to consideration of the relevance to political entrepreneurship of Don Lavoie’s view of economic entrepreneurship. Lavoie suggests that entrepreneurship takes place within culture and is concerned with interpreting and influencing culture. He makes the role of the economic entrepreneur seem similar in some respects to that of the political entrepreneur.

The other major topic considered in the essay is the contribution that Max Weber makes to our understanding of political entrepreneurship through his writings on charismatic and demagogic leadership. Weber makes the case that charismatic and demagogic leadership may be required to overcome the impersonal forces of bureaucratization within democracies. He also sheds light on the circumstances in which demagogic leadership can be consistent with democracy.

North and Weber both add to our understanding of the role of the political entrepreneur in overcoming obstacles to institutional change. However, the fundamental question that both leave aside is how to ensure that institutional change enhances liberty and opportunities for individuals to flourish. 

 

Addendum

Do ideas play a larger role than interests in bringing about institutional change, or is the opposite true? Prominent economists have been associated with opposing views on this question. Keynes and Hayek emphasized the role of ideas; Stigler and Becker emphasized the role of vested interests.

Perhaps the respective influence of ideas and interests depends on the narratives constructed by political entrepreneurs. The role of political entrepreneurs in constructing narratives has been discussed briefly in an earlier essay.

Some recent research suggests that political entrepreneurs discover “memes” (narratives, cues, frames) that invoke voters’ identity concerns (interests) or shift their ideas about how the world works. (Ash E, Mukand SW, Rodrik D, Economic Interests, Worldviews, and Identities: Theory and Evidence on Ideational Politics , Research Paper, May 2024). The authors identify a potential complementarity between worldview politics and identity politics and illustrate how they may reinforce each other. The authors develop a model which predicts that adverse economic shocks will lead to a greater incidence of ideational politics in affected regions. The results of empirical work using televised political ads seem to be consistent with their model predictions.

What Contribution did David L. Norton Make to our Understanding of Ethical Individualism?

 

The purpose of this post is to publish a review essay by Edward W. Younkins, author of among other things a wonderful trilogy of books on freedom and flourishing: Capitalism and Commerce, Champions of a Free Society, and Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society. (I have written a review of Ed’s trilogy, which was published on The Savvy Street last year. I published an earlier essay on Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society on this blog in 2019.)

David L. Norton, whose books are the subject of Ed’s review essay was an American philosopher who made an important contribution to the modern understanding of human flourishing. I read his book, Personal Destinies, last year, and wrote a couple of posts on this blog (here and here) on issues that were of particular interest to me.

Norton’s major books deserve a more comprehensive review. I am pleased to have the opportunity to publish on Freedom and Flourishing the following review essay by Ed Younkins.

A Review Essay of David L. Norton’s Books on Ethical Individualism

By

Edward W. Younkins

 

The purpose of this review essay is to introduce and evaluate the essential ideas that appear in David L. Norton’s two major books: his 1976 Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism (PD) and his 1991 Democracy and Moral Development: A Politics of Virtue (DMD). PD is a thorough, philosophically astute, visionary, and enduring contribution to contemporary moral philosophy in the tradition of classical Greek thinkers in which Norton offers a compelling view of human flourishing grounded in the idea that ethical life is rooted in the realization of unique personal potentialities. Norton’s philosophy will resonate with those seeking to reconcile individual freedom with moral responsibility. Then in DMD Norton attempts to extend his ethical individualism into the realm of political philosophy. In this work he advances politics that embraces ethical education. Although thought-provoking and ambitious, DMD falls short of meeting his goal and of having the impact of PD. In addition, its expanded role of the state and communitarian leanings are problematic, in tension with, and in opposition to, the individual freedom advocated in PD.

Personal Destinies

In this book Norton explains that for each person there is a particular unique way of living (his daimon) and there is a foundational ethical imperative to live in that manner. Each individual is morally obligated to know and live the truth according to his daimon, thus progressively actualizing an excellence that is innately and potentially his. His ethical responsibility and priority is to bring this inner self to outward actuality. Each of us is a unique irreplaceable being who has his own destiny in need of discovery and actualization.

What is the source of one’s daimon? Norton explains that the immediate source of one’s genetic inheritance is the person’s parents and that, as human beings, they represent the same category of being as the individual himself. This involves the consideration of both human nature and the specific unique identity of each individual.

The conclusion to be drawn is that each individual is the heir of the unrestricted humanity of which his parents are in his particular case the agents. Heteronomy does not obtain here because the individual is humanity in a particular instance. And genetic inheritance is fully capable of accounting for the individuation of daimons… (PD p.25)

Norton links the ancient concept of eudaimonia to Abraham Maslow’s idea of self-actualization. He also interchangeably uses the terms eudaimonism, perfectionism, self-actualization ethics, and normative individualism which stresses the quality of life of the agent. In addition, he distinguishes between self-actualization and self-realization because the inward self is real even if it is not actualized,

The eudaimonic individual experiences the whole of his life in every act, and he experiences parts and wholes together as necessary such that he can will that nothing be changed. But the necessity introduced here is moral necessity, deriving from his choice. Hence, we may say of him interchangeably, “He is where he wants to be, doing what he wants to do,” or “He is where he wants to be, doing what he must do.” (PD p.222)  

According to Norton, eudaimonia is both a feeling and a condition dependent upon right desire and is an objective value that is not imputed but recognized. It is the condition of living in truth to one’s daimon. The prerequisite of eudaimonia is the unique irreplaceable worth of each individual. Eudaimonia involves wholehearted commitment to one’s flourishing as a human being.

According to Norton, one’s aim is not to imitate the “worthy man” but to emulate him:

To emulate a worthy man is not to re-live his individual life, but to utilize the principle of worthy living, exemplified by him, toward the qualitative improvement of our individual life. (PD, p.13)

Norton informs us that it is Plato, rather than Aristotle, who supplies the underpinning support for individualistic metaphysics via his principle of the self-differentiation of the Forms and his idea of ultimate reality as a system of interrelated and intercommunicating Forms.  Because there are fewer Forms than existing things they serve as principles of intelligibility regarding the actual world.

Norton then builds on Leibniz’s principle of incompossibility that recognizes that not all possibilities are capable of co-existence. Stripping away Leibniz’s theology that states that actualization of pure possibilities is solely the work of God, Norton explains that distinct from actuality are infinite possibilities that are possible actualities and that, under certain conditions, these alternatives become available to existing beings. Between actuality and free possibility only total exchange can occur. Alternative worlds cannot exist simultaneously but can exist as possible worlds via the agency of world exchange. Whatever exists is susceptible to lapsing into the status of unactualized possibility.

Norton devotes three chapters to criticizing recent eudaimonisms from existentialist thinkers from Kierkgaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre none of whom has an unswerving commitment to reason. Norton dismisses Sartre’s characterization of freedom as freedom to do whatever one freely wants to do and criticizes Sartre’s denial of human nature in his efforts to affirm individuality.

Each person has his own irreplaceable and unique potential worth and innate distinct particularity which is his self. Norton’s notion of humankind is as “perfectible finitude”. Each unique person faces possibilities from which to choose. One’s unique flourishing can be progressively approached by living in truth to one’s daimon. Through an individual’s self-knowledge, self-discovery, and efforts he can progressively actualize the particularities that comprise his own essential identity. Human beings possess volition, can initiate action, and can make responsible decisions in accordance with who and what one is.

Norton maintains that each person is a universal particular and that the universal humanity that subsists within each person makes the possibility of a broad range of alternatives a component of every individual’s existence. Of course, this does not mean that every option is equally appropriate for each person. It only means that choices from among alternatives are those to be made correctly or incorrectly.

Confine your aspirations to the possibilities of your own nature; to desire to be more than a human being is to become less, for extra-human aims betray humankind and produce blindness to the values human life affords…. Extra-human happiness and desires are impediments to the appreciation and participation in human worth. (PD p.357)

The virtue of integrity is Norton’s fundamental principle of the life of a mature human being. Living one’s own truth comprises integrity, the primary virtue. Norton explains that flourishing is inextricably tied to the actuality of an integrated self. He speaks of “personal truth” and makes clear that the great threat to integrity is not falsehood, but rather the attractiveness of foreign truths—the truths that belong to others.

Our consideration of “personal truth” reveals that the great enemy of integrity is not falsehood but—ironically—the attractiveness of foreign truths, the truths that belong to others. (PD p.9)

One excellent chapter is devoted to the stages of life—childhood (dependence), adolescence (creative exploration of potentialities), maturation (adulthood), and old age. There are distinguishing incommensurable principles of behavior that pertain to each stage. Norton calls the passage between these stages “world exchange”. There is a succession of stages of which normativity exacts its modes of actualization. The author then devotes a follow-up chapter titled “Eudaimonia: The Quality of Moral Life in the Stage of Maturation”.

Norton views the self as a self of a particular kind (i.e., the self of a human being). He explains that a human being becomes conscious of himself as a self only in social interaction with others. A person’s knowledge of his selfhood thus develops concurrently with the knowledge of others as selves.

Each individual has continuous access to minds different from his own. Norton explains that the presence of another human being is an invitation to enter a perspectival world different from our own. Through a process of participatory enactment each of us can recognize a world of possibilities in ourselves, only one of which is made real in our own existence. This range of possibilities permits us to see those possibilities within other people that are being actualized or that can potentially be actualized.

From the individuation of possibilities it follows that the goal of the human individual is the perfection of his own unique finitude, and the goal of humanity is the community of complementary, perfected individuals. (PD pp. 142-43)

Norton discusses the inherent sociality of human beings based on mutual appreciation rather than on conflict when he speaks of “the complementarity of the excellences” or what Plato termed “congeniality of the excellences”. Through social interaction one’s knowledge of his own selfhood emerges concurrently with the knowledge of others as selves. In addition, these contacts enable individuals to recognize and affirm values different from their own. Through specialization people benefit from what others create by fulfilling their innate destinies. This personal interdependence is manifested in love, labor, and justice.

For Norton, a self-actualizing individual takes an interest in the self-actualization of others and an ideal society is one of complementary perfected individuals. His idea of “consequent sociality” thus emphasizes the individualist significance of human community life and politics. Norton’s eudaimonism clearly recognizes that a human being is not an isolated entity.

Regarding justice as the paramount virtue of society, Norton states that:

…the foundation of justice is the presupposition of the unique, irreplaceable, potential worth of every person, and forms of sociality that neglect or contradict this presupposition…deal justice a mortal wound at the outset. (PD p.310)

Norton views justice as a type of entitlement in which an individual is only entitled to possess as much of anything as he can use in actualizing himself. His theory holds that at the lower limit (or floor) each person is entitled to what is necessary for self-actualization including food, shelter, and decent treatment by others. Then at the upper limit (or ceiling) a person is entitled to the commensurate goods whose potential worth he can maximally actualize in accordance with his destiny, his meaningful work. The point of this upper limit is that not everything is appropriate with what one is. A person is only entitled to those goods that are right and proper to his self-development.  In Norton’s view, how a person acquires something to which he is “entitled” in order to actualize himself is irrelevant. The door is opened to the notion of distributive justice in a society that disregards the manner in which a person acquires what he is ‘entitled” to.

The unfortunate designation “entitlement” is used by Norton in connection with what individuals should do in a social context. He discusses what a person is morally entitled to and deserves in virtue of his own distinctive potential achievements. He contends that not every person is entitled to all goods, but that every person is entitled to those goods that will help them with their self-actualization. The knowledge of other people’s entitlements leads him to entertain the idea of distributive justice.

Norton thinks that his eudaimonism can be employed to demonstrate which distribution of goods is just and which is not. He begins by saying that it is each individual who will decide whether a good is or is not commensurate with the pursuit of his self-actualization. However, he qualifies his answer by stating that others can specify what one is entitled to if the person has not yet reached a stage of true individuation. His theory of entitlement leaves room for a theory of rights that would inspire political control in the realm of social justice.

Under normative individualism the final ground of the distinction between true and false desires is the nature of the individual himself, and he himself is the final authority. But by the emergent nature of individualism the exercise of this final authority by the individual is deferred until true individuation is attained, and meanwhile others must share with him the responsibility for the determination of his true interests. (PD pp.323-24)

Norton declares that public corroboration of claims of entitlement is needed because self-love and the knowledge it provides are imperfect. Although he suggests others who know and love the person, and thereafter, acquaintances as corroborators with respect to which goods are consistent with person’s unique calling, there remains the possibility that a political authority would step in when peer pressure and persuasion are insufficient. He has opened the door for huge amounts of control, and this unfortunately comes to fruition in his later book, Democracy and Moral Development.

 

Democracy and Moral Development

This 1991 book can be viewed as an extension of Norton’s earlier work, Personal Destinies. In it he aims to philosophically connect ideas from democratic theory, virtue (or character) ethics, moral development, and social and political justice. Norton praises democratic thinkers like Mill and Dewey for teaching that democratic institutions advance individuals pursuit of their chosen way of life. Holding a developmental notion of the individual, he makes a case for a greater than a minimal role for government in the life of each individual human being.

Norton explains the need to disclaim the closed teleology of Plato and Aristotle for an open-ended teleology. He views eudaimonia as an inclusive end that permits a multiplicity of types of self-actualizing lives aimed at a multiplicity of ends.

Arguing for an expanded notion of self-interest that includes the interests of others, Norton states that, because eudaimonia is of objective worth, one individual’s self-actualization is of value to another individual, and vice-versa. He claims that his eudaimonistic perspective transcends the altruist-egoist bifurcation.

Arguing that eudaimonism is not a form of egoism, he explains that:

The worth that is aspired to is objective worth, which is to say, it is of worth, not solely or primarily to the individual who actualizes it, but also to (some) other persons--specifically to such others as can recognize, appreciate, and utilize the distinctive kind of worth that the given individual manifests. (DMD p.7)

Norton explains that human beings are alike in seeking values but individuated by the differences of the types of values that they desire. It follows that his contention that one person’s actualization is of value to another person may be problematic because objective value for one person is not the same for every individual. Unlike Ayn Rand, he fails to realize that it is important to describe for whom and for what purpose something is of value.

Like Plato, Norton argues that self-love does not inhibit the love of others, but rather is the precondition of it:

…love is not exclusively or primarily interpersonal; it is first of all the right relationship of each person with himself or herself. The self to which love is the first instance directed is the ideal self that is aspired to and by which random change is transformed into the directed development we term growth, When the ideal of the individual is rightly chosen, it realizes objective values that subsisted within the individual as innate possibilities, thereby achieving in the individual as innate possibilities the self-identity that is termed “integrity” and that constitutes the foundation of other virtues. (DMD p.40)

According to Norton, there exists a kind of positive right to what every individual requires in order to exercise the central moral responsibility to discern and develop his personal potential moral excellence. He argues that a person is only entitled to what is commensurate with what is needed for his own self-development. Therefore, a worthy individual who has self-knowledge and lives by it, recognizes goods to which he is not entitled as distractions from the proper course of his life. Such a person manifests justice by not claiming goods that he cannot utilize and by actively willing them to those who can employ them toward their personal flourishing. A worthy person’s aspirations do not exceed the parameters of his own finitude. Recognizing these boundaries permits the potential augmentation of the finite excellences of qualitatively differentiated others.

According to Norton:

…no life can be said to be fulfilled whose worth is not recognized and utilized by (some) other person in their own self-actualizing enterprise. Correspondingly every well-lived life must utilize values produced by (some) other well-lived lives. And this is to say that within a society, every person has a legitimate interest in the essential personhood of every other. (DMD p.124)

Norton contends the switch from “some others” to “every other” is legitimated because all those upon you and I rely have need of values produced by others, who, in turn, have need of values produced by others, and so on. He states that this is the foundation for a “community of true individuals”.

Norton attempts to distinguish his views from those of contemporary communitarians. He does this by differentiating between “received” community and tradition and “chosen” community and tradition. He emphasizes choosing the right community and tradition as necessary to individuality as conceived of eudaimonistically. In the end, however, his worldview comes close to the communitarian worldview from which he wants to distinguish himself.

Norton argues that rights must be derived from responsibilities (not vice-versa}, that rights are not inherently adversarial, and that rights should be founded upon what a person requires in order to develop properly. He thus emphasizes responsibilities, the value of other people’s flourishing in one’s own self-interest, and the necessity of developing one’s latent powers.

Norton’s idea of a just society is “obligations primitive” rather than “rights primitive”. For him, rights are derived from the primary moral obligation of individuals to discern and actualize their innate potential excellences. This moral obligation produces both negative and positive rights that government will protect and help to implement.

Norton failed to understand that rights are an ethical concept that is not directly concerned with attaining the self-perfection of individuals but rather, as explained by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, are metanorms that establish the conditions for protecting the possibility of the pursuit of a person’s interests but not the achievement of flourishing itself. His philosophical individualism could have been improved if he had realized that ethics are not all at the same level. A two-level ethical system consists of metanorms (i.e., political norms) and personal ethical norms. Whereas metanorms are both legally and morally binding, personal ethical norms are only morally binding. Metanorms establish the conditions for the exercise of personal moral norms. [1]

Norton explicitly rejects moral minimalism and suggests a role for government in moral development. Taking a rather communitarian view of a person’s view of society, Norton contends that government should focus on helping people to realize their potential. For Norton, a just society is one in which an individual would be able to actualize his potential personal excellences. From his revisionist Platonist perspective, government should supply the preconditions for self-development that the individual is unable to supply and to which he is morally entitled. Among these necessary conditions are guaranteed subsistence, basic healthcare, and provision of appropriate education for children and adolescents in a variety of life-forming situations. An integrated self-actualized life requires both formal education and life-forming experiences that permit individuals the opportunity to explore life’s possibilities. The life choices one makes are founded on self-knowledge attained through exploration and experimentation as an adolescent in non-academic situations in a variety of youth service programs including apprenticeships, work study, community service programs, and a National Youth Service. Like Dewey, Norton suggests restructuring education by alternating academic courses and practical experiences and supporting youth public service.

As Norton puts it:

…the paramount function of government is to provide the necessary but non-self-suppliable conditions for optimizing opportunities for individual self-discovery and self-development. (DMD p.80)

Norton considers some implications of Plato’s The Republic for contemporary government and organizational management. One is that managers are distinct class of individuals including politicians whose vocation it is to manage. Others are that to be a good manager requires that a person know the good of the social organization as a whole that one manages and that he identifies his own good with the good of the whole organization. The result of the natural division of labor by individual excellences produces a type of management class who would be trustees of the public interest. Of course, this class would be the result of autonomous choices made during the progression of self-development through education especially at the stage of adolescence.

Norton argues that:

If we term both social engineering and the welfare state “maximal government” and the night-watchman state “minimal government”, then good government, eudaimonistically conceived, lies intermediate between them, as conducive government. (DMD p.166)   

Conclusion

Whereas PD explored the ethical and psychological dimensions of individual flourishing, DMD examined how political and social institutions and practices can support or impede the cultivation of moral virtues in individuals. DMD expands Norton’s analysis to include the role of the state and community in fostering moral development. It builds on the ideas introduced in PD but moves toward the view that political systems have a moral purpose beyond the protection of an individual’s negative rights and toward the notion that the state should be an active participant in moral education, shaping the conditions under which a person can develop virtues. DMD’s more communitarian focus is in tension with the ethical individualism of PD. PD offers a profound, original, and nearly flawless contribution to ethical thought by developing a solid foundation for understanding personal moral development and flourishing. However, Norton’s flawed theory of entitlement in PD leads him to go far off-track in DMD.

His entitlement theory opened the door for recurrent intrusion in people’s lives. Norton argues in DMD for people’s rights to things that cannot be self-provided. These are essentially claims to the positive performance of others. People have positive rights only at the expense of someone else’s negative rights. No political or social system can replace a person’s own responsibility for the character of his life. Norton’s view of the state as a moral educator risks imposing a state-sanctioned notion of virtue that could infringe on individual autonomy. This could be seen as paternalistic and undermining of the very autonomy that he seeks to promote in PD. Freedom is a prerequisite for the development of virtue. Any expansion of the role of the state beyond minimal government is undesirable. Norton’s case that both negative and positive rights must be derived from responsibilities is untenable.

Despite the above flaws, Norton’s work, primarily in PD, advances a metaphysics of authentic possibilities and an ethical individualism that is applicable to each person’s personal and social circumstances. His eudaimonistic view of the moral life in terms of perfecting one’s nature thereby attaining a state of flourishing provokes serious thought. His ideas deserve to be studied along with the ideas of contemporary thinkers writing from a neo-Aristotelian perspective including, but not limited to, Ayn Rand, Henry B. Veatch, Tibor R. Machan, Fred D. Miller, Lester Hunt, Douglas B. Rasmussen, and Douglas J. Den Uyl.

 

Note

{1} See Rasmussen and Den Uyl, Norms of Liberty, pp. 257-264.

Works Cited

Norton, David L. 1976. Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

______. 1991. Democracy and Moral Development: A Politics of Virtue. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Douglas J. Den Uyl. 2005. Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics. University Park. PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

…….

A shorter version of this essay, focusing on Personal Destinies, has been published on The Savvy Street.