This paper will explore the opening argument and first chapter of Leo Strauss’ Natural Right and History. His very opening statement explores both the conception of natural rights that are held by the majority of the people in the world, and how he feels that natural right exists. He makes his argument based on the viewpoints of philosophy, but also connects that philosophy with history, which is where the argument that natural right cannot exist comes from. Just because of events that happened in the past, where people were murdered, enslaved, or otherwise oppressed, does not necessarily mean that people lack natural rights, but rather that they can be taken away from them by oppressors.
Many of the great thinkers, specifically those who have studied the idea of natural right, feel that there is no real natural right that people can have. Strauss attacks this with the passage “…there cannot be natural right if there are no immutable principles of justice, but history shows us that all principles of justice are mutable” (9). This draws on the idea that there are no real true principles of justice, as all cultures, as well as all people, have their own ideas of what is right and what is wrong. It also shows that, although there may be some rights that people may have, another person, or, more likely, group of people, can take that right away from a person. He explores this idea to show that people feel there is nothing certain or guaranteed, but in reality he shows that there is in fact this natural right that people have, but this would not be based in history, as history shows those faults of the human race, and those who have oppressed people.
But, Strauss goes on to show how those who want to prove that there is no natural right would have to look to something that is not historical. Strauss says that in order to be able to argue that natural right does not exist, “…it must have a basis other than historical evidence.” He also shows that people tend to confuse what is learned in history with what is done in philosophy, or rather that the ideas and “philosophical” arguments are actually just based on what happened in history (10). There has to be a basis on which there would be his argument. Just because people had those rights taken away from them does not necessarily mean that natural right exists, but it does mean that some people can take those rights away.
He also talks about the basis of conventionalism, and how there are differing views on the same philosophical idea, based on the older and newer views on things. The most basic distinction that he makes with conventionalism is that between the old and new schools of thought. Those who are with the ancient views of philosophy feel that nature is the basis of everything, and that the idea of natural right has no real place in nature, but rather that it is a creation of man, and it is based on an agreement between people. “…agreement may produce peace but it cannot produce truth” (11). Then there is the newer idea of thought that man is actually the ultimate driving force, and that nature is, at best, equal to anything done by man. Man tries to find the causes of these thought processes, and that, if there would be natural right, it would be rather something above nature, rather than natural (“In the latter case, they imply that the world of man…is exalted far above nature. (11)). However, there is an agreement between both schools of thought that these differences are actually fundamental to anything.
Strauss also argues that there is no way that man could live in a community with other men if there was no agreement between them. If there wasn’t, it would be likely that one person would try to take those natural rights away from the other, hence the idea that an agreement between people is actually natural right. Those people of the modern era believe quite the contrary, and feel that there is no natural right, and that there is no way that any human could comprehend that, because people look at things through history, and there is therefore no way that they could look at things from a future perspective (12).
The arguments of those who are against the idea of natural right actually, according to Strauss, are actually hurting themselves. “By denying the…significance of universal norms, the eminent conservatives…were, in fact, continuing and even sharpening the revolutionary effort of their adversaries” (14). It’s a stance that can be taken against almost any opponent, where there would be an argument made by one side, but, when actually thought about by the side that is contrary to that idea, can actually prove the point and work against the people who made the initial argument. By fighting with history, and looking at it as history, people don’t realize that their arguments would have no real weight, just because they are taking the basis of thought from something that happened in the past, when reality they should be looking at both those philosophical arguments, which would be, on the basis on deciding a philosophical truth, much more accurate, as well as looking at the development of various governments, as a historical standpoint. The governments go back to the idea that people agree to live with their neighbor, and to adopt some sort of norm of rules, proving, both on historical basis, and on the thought that human culture is greater than nature, this must be natural right.
At the end of the chapter, Strauss makes a distinction between history and philosophy by showing the difference. History of itself deals with political history, of the nature, ascendance and fall of governments and what has happened in those governments, or, rather, that history deals more with political philosophy rather than philosophy in general (34). His distinction here is important due to the differing ideas that are held by each of the above groups. A historical philosopher only looks at philosophy by what has happened in the past, which is why said philosophers do not believe that humans have a natural right, because they do not always have those rights, and could have them easily taken away. A true philosopher, or, rather, one who would look into a question from a philosophical point of view, would actually see a question from more than a political standpoint. A true philosopher’s views are not hindered solely by historical fact, but rather by what can be understood by the people. “Historicism is the ultimate outcome of the crisis of modern natural right” (34). Strauss argues that history, because of the events that had happened in it, would destroy the idea of natural right because, again, based on certain events that have happened, it would show that there is no natural right, when it is right there in front of people. Strauss is a proponent against the idea of historical philosophy, because people do not necessarily act on history, but they do act on what they see as right and wrong. In a sense, people agree to what right and wrong are, and let other people handle the enforcement of right and wrong.
Now, as great of an idea as Strauss has in his writing, I tend to see both sides of his argument, but do not necessarily agree or disagree with him. He looks at everything from a purely philosophical standpoint, while, not necessarily wrong in doing so, he also does miss the fact that there is history, and, as a great quote says “those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Sure he does see everything from his philosophical standpoint, and that’s fine, but there needs to be a distinction between historical right and natural right. I see it as all people do have rights that should not be taken away from them, but on the same token, people can take those rights away, through imprisonment, slavery, or through other manners. However, natural right does not go away just because of these ideas, but rather, those people should be fighting to protect their natural rights, and throw everything aside to guarantee those rights. That’s what happened in the American Revolution, people wanted their rights over an oppressor, and they fought to gain that freedom. So historians are wrong in saying that there is no natural right, as I have been saying throughout this paper, natural right does not just disappear because someone took it away, but rather, it goes in hiding, waiting for the time that it can come back again.
The argument that Strauss makes for both school, likewise, I agree with both standpoints, though not quite so much as with the modern view that nature is, at best, equal to the creations of man. It is these people that think that man has no natural right, because, since mankind is greater than nature, rights are just something that man has made up. This may be true, but this also supports that there is a natural right, solely based on the fact that humans are something that comes from nature, and, although humans do not necessarily live in nature, they still use natural thoughts and processes. The idea of rights is purely natural to humans, but, then again it is also in the nature of some people that those rights can be taken away. Some people who take this view would be the kind of people who would be dictators, as the majority of the human race has some desire for power, and control over people, that, to them, natural right should not exist.
But the question is does natural right exist as Strauss says it does, or is it actually a creation of humans? I would actually agree more with the statement that it is a creation of humans. The reason behind that is that there is no real sense of justice among other animals, they kill each other as they need to, but don’t really do anything to ensure that they will all have rights. Even amongst wolves there is a pack leader that everyone else follows. Its just simple nature for them to follow the wolf that is strongest, and that is what people do. They follow those in power, so that they may have their rights guaranteed. That’s the big difference between the human and animal worlds, is that, though there may be some form of organized society in the animal world, nothing there is guaranteed. A wolf pack may not let the smallest member of the pack feed on a kill, but in human society, people will (generally) look to help that weaker member of society. That member has just as much of a right to live, eat, and be happy as any other member of society. People believe in their rights, and, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, all people have the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To some this may seem like a dream, but one day they may be able to overthrow their oppressors.
Not to say that Strauss is completely wrong that there is natural right, because, on one side, one could claim that, since man made it, it would be natural, but if it was made, then it wouldn’t. I heard this argument, and here is my response to it. It seems to be an undecided issue, as there are no real answers to the question on whether or not the rights of mankind are actually natural, or made. I would stick with that Strauss is right in saying that humans do have some form of basic rights, but those rights are not something that is inherent. Again, it’s a creation of society, so that people can actually live in communities. I mentioned earlier in the essay that people would not be able to live near each other without some form of agreement, and I completely agree with that statement, which is why I feel the way I do on the thoughts of natural right. Every society, every city, every country has some form of laws that are there to protect the rights of those people in that country. Some may have fewer protections than other, and some may have laws that only protect specific people, but the laws are there, and by the people living under those rules, they are agreeing to those rules, not necessarily because they like them, but because they are given their protections. The greater majority of nations in the world have laws against killing, stealing, and other such crimes. When these laws are made, people have to agree on them, and they then should be accepted by the majority of the people. Now, because of those differences in people’s feelings on justice, not necessarily everyone would agree with these laws, but, in order to protect the rights of humankind, there needs to be some form of protection, and people do need to be willing to give up some of their rights in order to help protect those rights that are important to them. This is where the development of civilizations comes in, under a, nominally, strong leader.
Then one may argue that maybe the people do not like that there is a leader, that he is oppressive, manipulative, or worse. The people should then rise up against said leader, if it is possible for them to. People will fight to protect those natural rights that they do have, in hopes that they may be free of that leader one day. And, using a quite modern example, people are also willing to fight to help people keep those rights. The Iraq war is a good example of other people going in to help an oppressed people get their rights back from a terrible dictator that had so much control that the people could hardly even speak. Events and people like this are where the historical philosophers base their arguments on. But they are not necessarily right, because just because people do not have their rights at one point does not mean that they will not have those rights back at another point.
Strauss’ idea of natural right does not seem to be something that can be used necessarily in the form that he presents it. He presents it as something that would exist within nature, but really it is an agreement between people that would say “I won’t infringe on this, this, and that right if you agree to do the same.” Strauss’ idea of natural right is not natural, but manmade. Even though the argument is in the wrong name, it is also right, because one cannot base whether or not people have rights on what has happened in the past. It would be great if people could be able to live and have their rights all the time, but there are those people who are able to manipulate and control people and take those rights away from them. It will happen, its going to happen again, but just because history dictates that does not necessarily mean that there is no right. Rather, the rights of those people are on hold, so to speak, until they fight for their rights, or, if they are unable to, till someone comes and saves them.
Works Cited
Strauss, Leo; Natural Right andHistory University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1965
