Danny Frederick and Berkeley, i.e. consequentialist theory of political authority.
[As Blandshard put it: without the state no human good is possible. It is a "sine que non" "not possible without which".
Michael Huemer had a debate with Epstein on political authority and to me it seemed that Epstein was right even though Huemer is the greater philosopher. however the actual point really was not clear to me until I saw Danny Frederick's idea that the critique of Huemer on political authority does not apply to Berkeley's consequentialist theory.
[Dr Kelley Ross also noticed the problems with Huemer's position in that debate.]
And I think this consequentialist theory goes well with all mediaeval authorities that I know about.
The Rambam has peace of the state as one of the purposes of many of the laws of the Torah.
Even though the Gemara does not state the reasons for the commandments still it holds the Torah is a consequentialist approach. See Bava Mezia 119a. and lots of other places where the sagesagree with r shimon ben yohai that there are reasons for the commandments that are known. They however disagree about cases where the reason and the letter of the law differ. But that we know the reasons they do not disagree.
[As Blandshard put it: without the state no human good is possible. It is a "sine que non" "not possible without which".
Michael Huemer had a debate with Epstein on political authority and to me it seemed that Epstein was right even though Huemer is the greater philosopher. however the actual point really was not clear to me until I saw Danny Frederick's idea that the critique of Huemer on political authority does not apply to Berkeley's consequentialist theory.
[Dr Kelley Ross also noticed the problems with Huemer's position in that debate.]
And I think this consequentialist theory goes well with all mediaeval authorities that I know about.
The Rambam has peace of the state as one of the purposes of many of the laws of the Torah.
Even though the Gemara does not state the reasons for the commandments still it holds the Torah is a consequentialist approach. See Bava Mezia 119a. and lots of other places where the sagesagree with r shimon ben yohai that there are reasons for the commandments that are known. They however disagree about cases where the reason and the letter of the law differ. But that we know the reasons they do not disagree.
Rav Nelkenbaum [who later became a rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY.] also pointed out to me that the Ari (Isaac Luria) does not disagree with this point. rather he shows the connections of the commandments with the higher worlds but does not disagree that there are rational and known reasons for them. The Ari certainly does not give reasons himself.
