The Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government hosted two panels on November 14, 2025, as part of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture’s annual Fall Conference. The first panel was entitled “Whose Natural Law? Disputes in Natural Law Theory,” and the second, “Martin Luther King, Jr., Barry Goldwater, and the Living Tradition of American Freedom.”
“Whose Natural Law? Disputes in Natural Law Theory” was led by Dr. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice of Philosophy at Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life. Other panelists included Dr. Bill Mattison, Wilsey Professor of Theology and Faculty Director of the Moreau First Year Experience at Notre Dame, as well as Bradley Lewis, Dean and Associate Professor of Philosophy at the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America. Moschella’s book, Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law: Principles for Human Flourishing (University of Notre Dame Press) served as the foundation for the conversation, which aimed to build bridges between the “so-called new natural law theory” and its old natural law critics.
The panel addressed three primary areas of dispute within this philosophical tradition: the relationship between new natural law (NNL) and human nature, the place of virtue in natural law theory, and the scopes of political authority and the common good. Moschella began the panel by highlighting a few areas of debate among contemporary natural law theorists working within the Aristotelian Thomistic tradition, particularly the question of whether moral principles can be derived directly from theoretical facts about human nature. Moschella addressed the concern amongst critics that NNL denies the existence of natural teleology by contending that it recognizes the complexity of human nature, noting that our teleology as an organism may at times conflict with our teleology as moral agent.
In response to old natural law theorists who claim that NNL lacks a teleological explanation or attempts to construct an ethic independent of human nature, Moschella highlighted an important methodological presupposition from Aquinas’ commentary on Nicomachean Ethics. Moschella argued that NNL is derived from what Aquinas calls the “third order of reason,” which directs us toward the perfection of our nature as moral agents, noting that “NNL avoids the human or utilitarian reduction of ethics to a combination of on the one hand subrational desires that gives us our ends first order and technical or fourth order reasoning about the most effective means to achieve those ends.” She continued, “The NNL places so much emphasis on the moral order as having its own underived first principles.” Moschella stressed that NNL is often mistakenly portrayed as following Kant or Humes, when in fact it is, in her view, fully compatible with Aquinas.
In their responses, Mattison and Lewis each offered distinct perspectives of New Natural Law theory that enriched the panel discussion. Mattison’s response primarily focused on countering Moschella's first two areas of dispute, questioning whether NNL creates an excessive division between the way “that the human person as moral agent in the third order is separated off from the human person as animal organism in the first order.” Lewis addressed the third area of dispute, raising two concerns that he believes deserve “further and more extensive consideration.” Lewis primarily focused on how NNL understands the common good, specifically the distinction between the comprehensive or integral common good and the specifically politically common good. Lewis explains his objection stating, "Some more traditional Thomists have worried that this understanding of the common good fails to do justice to the dignity of political life and also to the classical conception of the common good as a real final cause.”
Moschella reflected on the panel, stating, “I thought that the panel was a fruitful exchange clarifying some controversial and frequently misunderstood aspects of the so-called ‘new’ natural law theory, and helping to bridge some of the putative divides among contemporary natural law theorists.” She continued, “I hope that the audience went away with a more nuanced understanding of these debates and an openness to further study and dialogue.”
The second panel of the day, “Martin Luther King, Jr., Barry Goldwater, and the Living Tradition of American Freedom” featured guest panelist Dr. Nicholas Buccola, professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, and Dr. Melvin Rogers, professor of Political Science and Associate Director of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Brown University.
Buccola led the conversation centered around the themes present in his new book, One Man’s Freedom: Goldwater, King, and the Struggle over an American Ideal (Princeton University Press). The panel sought to explore the story of two significant figures in American political and social history, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Barry Goldwater, who both raised critical questions about freedom in America.
Buccola began the panel by drawing from many speeches and statements from both King and Goldwater, with the aim to further examine their competing visions of American freedom. Buccola outlined how King and Goldwater became symbols for two rival understandings of American freedom, with King’s conception being grounded in "conscientious collectivism" and Goldwater’s in “rugged individualism.” He described Goldwater as the “forebearer of western libertarianism” who preached the "gospel of the free competitive life with evangelistic fervor,” identifying “big government” and “big labor” as central threats to Goldwater’s philosophy of freedom. In contrast, he outlined the rise of Martin Luther King, Jr., emphasizing his approach as one that embodies conscientious collaboration and dependence on other people. Buccola illustrated this through the example of the Montgomery bus boycott, where King coordinated thousands of working-class African Americans to develop carpools and organize collective action. Buccola highlights the collective formulation of these demands being from the people themselves, emphasizing a “radically democratic understanding of freedom.”
In response to Buccola’s remarks, Rogers illustrated how these competing visions played out in practice. He highlighted King's approach, stating, “His freedom is creative, forward-looking, and costly. It demands moral courage and shared sacrifice. For him, freedom is not a possession to be defended, but a calling to be realized, a moral movement from what is to what ought to be.” Rogers emphasized that King’s vision of freedom sees “liberty fulfilled only in equality.” In contrast, Goldwater placed an emphasis upon the license of freedom, where equality can begin to feel like a constraint. Rogers acknowledged that equality is mentioned in Goldwater’s vision primarily as a source of fear, stating, “On this understanding of freedom, integration as a consequence of equality will now appear to be at odds with the demand of freedom.”
Rogers emphasized that this difference in moral direction remains a major source in American politics today. He expressed his disappointment in Goldwater’s view and also explained his discontent with King’s fidelity to the past, stating, “Yes, there is the famous ‘I have a dream’ speech. But across his body of work, he often invoked the founding as – in his conception – the great well of democracy, and regularly described the civil rights movement as seeking to complete a quest the nation had embarked upon at its founding.” Rogers noted that both King and Goldwater, despite their opposing visions of freedom, tethered the legitimacy of their ideas to the origin stories they tell. Rogers concluded by drawing on this similarity, suggesting that the responsibility of the living tradition is our decision on how we shall carry forward the inherited values of freedom, justice, and equality.
Underscoring the center’s interdisciplinary reach, the panel provided a fascinating look into American political history in the 1950s and 1960s. Dr. Donald Stelluto, chair for this panel, noted the broad appeal of the topic due to its exploration of these two political and social icons in light of history, as symbols for the larger discussions occurring in America at the time, and the similarities that linked them.
“Both men raised analogous critical questions about freedom in America, often seeking to preserve similar values. Ideas were raised by each in dialogue with the other, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Drawing on key texts from both men, the panel illuminated ideas and values that also linked these two figures. In so doing, the panelists did something special, restoring our awareness of the shared values that were often at the core of social and political dialogue in this period.” Stelluto went on to note that the panel combined fascinating insights with personal stories and, with fresh insights, reminded a full room of attendees that there is much yet to learn about concepts of American freedom in the 1950s and 1960s.
To view the full recording of both panel events, as well as past event archives, visit our lecture library.