I am a Ph.D. student in Applied Philosophy at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, defending in Spring of 2026. I specialize in political philosophy, philosophy of religion, and ethics/moral philosophy, particularly in how these relate to natural law theory. When I am not doing philosohpy I enjoy training for marathons, reading history, and visiting my family in Cincinnati.
I am a Ph.D. student in Applied Philosophy at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, defending in Spring of 2026. I specialize in political philosophy, philosophy of religion, and ethics/moral philosophy, particularly in how these relate to natural law theory. I am originally from Cincinnati, and enjoy time with my family down there. When I'm not doing philosophy, I enjoy training for marathons and reading history books.
I have independently taught three courses and I have been a graduate assistant for two courses. I taught Introduction to Ethics, Contemporary Moral Issues, and Medical Ethics independently. In my teaching, I unpack difficult and complex ideas and making them understandable and applicable to a broad range of backgrounds. To do that, I use three tools: appropriate reading assignments, seeking a balance between lecture and conversation, and using assessments that require thoughtful engagement rather than merely rote memorization. Overall, I teach with the purpose of my students understanding philosophy and applying the arguments learned in class to their everyday lives. I aim to be the present professor that assigns with purpose, rather than mere busywork.
Natural law theory counts autonomy as an instrumental good, or not a good at all. I argue that because Joseph Raz's understanding of autonomy is the choice between valuable options, it collapses into John Finnis's understanding of freedom as practical reasonableness. Therefore, autonomy, or freedom, should be counted among the set of intrinsic goods of human nature within natural law theory.
Thomas Pink is a theorist of Catholic integralism who accepts traditional natural law theory. I argue that his acceptance of natural law theory coupled with widespread blameless ignorance of religious faith faces his integralist theory with a dilemma: either it is unjust, or it is infeasible. While such a dilemma is not problematic for a merely ideal theory, an ideal rooted in nature must be capable of instantiation. Integralism must be just and feasible, and Pink's theory must answer this dilemma.
If autonomy and religion are both intrinsically good according to natural law theory, both goods should be promoted by a perfectionist state. I claim that religion, as a good, is a broad, basic category of pursuits that include non-theistic religions such as Buddhism but excludes deliberate atheism. By creating the conditions in which spiritual pursuits may flourish, I show that a state may promote religion without disrespect of freedom to choose.
