In editing a book called The Unnecessary Science, I have been looking into natural law theory and Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. Here, natural law’s big modern proponent, Ed Feser (at whom the book is aimed as a critique) locks horns with Graham Oppy. My issue for such debates like this, that are very narrow and metaphysical in nature, is that they are (to me, granted) eliminatable with something like conceptual nominalism. I, personally, would have just taken issue with opening premises that include arguable ideas such as “potential”, as I did here and here. Indeed, it took 54 minutes to bring nominalism up.
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook: