Exegisis: Natural Right and History by Leo Strauss

This paper will explore the opening argument and first chapter of Leon Strauss’ Natural Law and History. The speech itself explores both the concept of natural rights, which are held by most people in the world, and how it feels to be a natural right. He makes his argument based on the considerations of philosophy, but also connects philosophy with history, where he argues that natural law cannot exist. Because of things that happened in the past, where people were killed, enslaved, or otherwise oppressed, it does not necessarily mean that people lack natural rights, but that they can be taken away by the oppressors.

Many great men, especially those who have studied the idea of ​​natural law, feel that there is no real natural right that men can have. At this point, Strauss argues that “… natural law cannot exist if the principles of justice are not immutable; history shows us that all principles of justice are immutable” (9). Hence it is believed that there are no true principles of justice, and that all cultures and all people have their own ideas about right and wrong. It also shows that although there are certain rights that people can have, another person or rather a group of people can take that right away from a person. He examines this belief to show that people feel that nothing is certain or guaranteed, but in fact it shows that there is this natural right that people have, but this is not based on history, as history shows those faults of people. nation, and those who oppress the people.

But Strauss goes on to show how those who want to prove that there is no natural right look at something historical not. Strauss says that in order to argue that natural law does not exist, “… it must have a basis other than historical documents.” He also shows that people tend to confuse what they have learned in history with what is happening in philosophy, and indeed “philosophical” ideas and arguments are actually only based on what happened in history (10). Let him have a reason in which his reason was. For the right taken away from them does not necessarily mean that it is a natural right, but that some people can take those rights away.

He also talks about the foundation of conventionalism, and how different opinions are held in the same philosophical system, according to older and more recent opinions about things. The most important distinction he makes with conventionalism is between the old and new schools of thought. But those who hold the opinion of the ancient philosophers, feel that nature is the foundation of all things, and that the idea of ​​natural law is not real in nature, but that it is the creation of man, and that it is founded on that agreement. to the people “Convention … can produce peace, but it cannot produce truth” (11). Then the more recent idea of ​​thought is that man is actually the ultimate force, and that nature is at best equal to everything made by man. Man endeavors to find the causes of these thoughts, and that, if there is a natural right, there must be something above nature rather than natural; is exalted far above nature (11)).

Strauss also argues that there is no way a person can live in community with other people if there is no harmony between them. If it were not, it would be likely that one person would try to take those natural rights away from another, hence the idea that an agreement between people is actually a natural right. Those people of the modern age believe quite the opposite, and feel that there is no natural right, and that no human being can understand it in any way, because people look at things through history, and therefore there is no way that this can be done. look at things from a future perspective (12).

The arguments of those who are actually against the idea of ​​natural law, according to Strauss, are actually harming themselves. “By denying… the meaning of universal norms, the conservatives… were outstanding, even continuing and even sharpening the new efforts of their opponents” (14). It is a state that can be taken against almost any adversary, where an argument would be made on one side, but when in reality the opposite side of that idea is thought to actually prove the matter and work against the people. He started the argument. By fighting with history and looking at it as history, people do not understand that their reasons have no real weight, because they take the basis of their thinking from something that happened in the past; when they look at things both at those philosophical arguments, which, taken into consideration of philosophical truth, are much more accurate, and at the same time at the progress of various governments, as if they were a historical idea. Governments return to the idea that people agree to live with their neighbor and adopt some. the normative rule, proving both on a historical basis and in thought that human culture is greater than nature, this must be a natural right.

At the end of the chapter, Strauss distinguishes between history and philosophy, showing the difference. History itself deals with the history of politics, the nature, rule and fall of governments and what happened during those governments, or rather. That history deals more with political philosophy than with philosophy in general (34). The distinction here is important because of the different ideas held by each of the aforementioned groups. The historical philosopher only considers philosophy through what happened in the past, so the said philosophers do not believe that people have natural rights, because they do not always have those rights, and they can be easily taken away. A true philosopher, or rather one who would look at the question from a philosophical point of view, would look at the question more than a political one. The opinions of true philosophers are hindered not only by historical facts, but by what can be understood by the people. “Historicism is the final outcome of the crisis of modern natural law” (34). Strauss argues that history, because of the events that happened in it, would destroy the idea of ​​natural law, because again, from certain events that happened, it shows that there is no natural law when it is right. before the people Strauss advocates against the idea of ​​a philosophy of history, because people do not necessarily act in history, but do what they see as just and unjust. In this sense, people agree on what is right and wrong, and other people handle the enforcement of right and wrong.

Now, as far as the ideas that Strauss has in his writing, I tend to look at both sides of the argument, but they don’t necessarily agree or disagree with him. He looks at everything from a purely philosophical point of view, while, not necessarily making a mistake, he is also mistaken that it is history, and, as a great passage says, “those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.” Indeed, he sees everything from a philosophical point of view, but he must distinguish between historical law and natural law. For I see that all men have a right, which is not taken away from them, but by the same right men can take those rights away, by imprisonment, by slavery, or other manners. However, natural law is not only retreating because of these ideas, but rather they are fighting to protect their natural rights and throwing everything to guarantee their rights. What happened in the American-revolution was that people wanted their rights against the oppressor and fought for that freedom. Historians are therefore mistaken when they say that there is no natural right, as I have said in this paper, that natural right is not only taken away, because someone has taken it away, but it is hidden, waiting for the time when it can come. again

The argument that Strauss makes for both schools, I equally agree with both sides, although no less than in the recent opinion that the nature of created man is certainly equal. These are those who think that man has no natural right, because, since man is greater than nature, the rights are just what man has made. This may be true, but this also supports natural law, simply because humans are something that is from nature, and although humans are not necessarily they live in nature, yet they use natural thoughts and processes. The idea of ​​rights is only natural to man, but again it is also in the nature of some that those rights can be taken away. There are some who wish that this class of men would be dictators, as most of the class of men have some power, and the power of the people, so that it is not a natural right for them.

But the question is whether it is a natural right, as Strauss says, or is it actually a human creation? Rather, I agree more with the fact that it is a human creation. The reason behind this is that there is no real sense of justice among other animals, they kill each other as they should, but they do nothing really to have all the rights. Even among wolves there is a pack leader whom the others follow. Just follow simple nature, like the strongest wolf, and that’s what people do. They follow them in power, that their rights may be guaranteed. This is a big difference between the human and animal worlds, although it may take some form. orderly society is not guaranteed in the animal world. The wolf does not allow the pack to feed on the smallest member of the cattle during the killing, but in humane society, people want to. (generally) they should look after that weaker member of society. This member has as much 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, everyone has “The right to life, freedom and to attain happiness.” To some this may seem like a dream, but at some point they will be able to overthrow their drivers.

I do not want to say that Strauss’s natural law is completely false, because on the one hand it can be affirmed that when man did it, it would be natural, but if it were done, it would not be. I have heard this argument, and here is my response. It seems to be an uncertain issue, because there are no real answers to the question of whether or not human rights are actually natural or created. While I would like to stick with Strauss, he was right when he said that people have some form of basic rights, but those rights are not something that is inherent. Again, society is a creation so that people can actually live in communities. I suggested earlier in a comment that people could not live without some form of agreement with each other, and I completely agree with that statement, which is why I feel doing in by the thoughts of natural law. Every society, every city, every country has some laws that are there to protect the rights of those people in that country. Some may have fewer protections than others, and some may have laws which only protect certain people, but there are laws, and the people who are under those laws agree to those laws, not because they are such, but because. their protections are given. Most nations in the world have laws against murder, theft, and other such crimes. The people must agree to these laws, and then they are accepted by the majority. Now, because of those differences of opinion about justice, not necessarily everyone agrees with these laws, but in in order to protect< /a> the human race rights must be some form of protection, and people need to be willing to give up some of their rights to help protect those rights that are important to them. This is where the progress of civilizations comes in, under a, specifically, strong leader.