Natural Law and the
Founding
P. Schultz
December 16, 2012
Just some fun on a
Sunday morning. My responses to one of the many posts on my Facebook page from
a friend. This one is worth reading and the link is below.
"Schlueter
pushes this argument in a somewhat unusual direction: he claims that the
founders were altogether cognizant of a tradition about which he admits they
had little explicit to say. Following Christopher Wolfe, he calls this “natural
law liberalism,” and argues that this is our true inheritance. He contends that
“it does not matter that none of the American founders ever articulated the
principles of natural law liberalism in a systematic way…. As John Cardinal
Newman said of the Apostles, the American founders did not build better than
they knew, they knew more than they said.”
Schultz: I believe the correct label for people who make such arguments - the founders were driven by arguments they never articulated - is sophistry. Of course, I prefer a less "correct" label: People like Wolfe are "prostitutes." And I have never understood the appeal of whores. Nor do I understand why one should debate them.
Schultz: I believe the correct label for people who make such arguments - the founders were driven by arguments they never articulated - is sophistry. Of course, I prefer a less "correct" label: People like Wolfe are "prostitutes." And I have never understood the appeal of whores. Nor do I understand why one should debate them.
"The reason why
my claims about the self-undermining nature of the liberal founding so disquiet
many of my conservative friends, I believe, is that they raise anxiety that our
tradition may have fewer native resources than we might believe or want for the
restoration of the virtuous republic that we all desire."
Schultz: Well, here is Deneen's error clarified. There can be no "restoration" of that which never existed and was never even intended to exist. As is clear from the Federalist, the goal was to establish a "commercial republic" not a "virtuous republic." There is a world of difference between the two. And it is a stretch to label even the Anti-Federalists proponents of a "virtuous republic" as they were proponents of "small republics," meaning among other things "small minded republics." You might even say they wanted local commerce, rather than national commerce, if you understand "local" and "national" as more than geographical. They advocated for small for the sake of maintaining relative equality, not for the sake of virtue as Deneen wishes us to understand it. And I will add that if "the restoration of the virtuous republic" means that people like Deneen and Wolfe will "rule," than I for one do not desire it. As Thoreau once said: "If I know a man is coming to my house to make me good, I run like the wind." Or something like that.
Schultz: Well, here is Deneen's error clarified. There can be no "restoration" of that which never existed and was never even intended to exist. As is clear from the Federalist, the goal was to establish a "commercial republic" not a "virtuous republic." There is a world of difference between the two. And it is a stretch to label even the Anti-Federalists proponents of a "virtuous republic" as they were proponents of "small republics," meaning among other things "small minded republics." You might even say they wanted local commerce, rather than national commerce, if you understand "local" and "national" as more than geographical. They advocated for small for the sake of maintaining relative equality, not for the sake of virtue as Deneen wishes us to understand it. And I will add that if "the restoration of the virtuous republic" means that people like Deneen and Wolfe will "rule," than I for one do not desire it. As Thoreau once said: "If I know a man is coming to my house to make me good, I run like the wind." Or something like that.
Schultz: Last comment
- maybe: Deneen is pretty good here exposing the sophistry of these arguments
for a "natural law" tradition. But he at one point connects this
tradition to Aristotle. Problem: Aristotle never used the phrase "natural
law" and he couldn't because his view of nature - incomplete and in need
of completion by humans - would not allow it. Often, Aristotle says that nature
intended certain things, such as that the bodies of "freemen" be
visibly different than those of "slaves" but of course failed in this
intention. Well, if I am not wrong, this throws the whole argument in favor of
slavery as "natural" into a tizzy and makes it less than plausible.
And, of course, as a Greek, Aristotle knew that men loved men and women loved
women, which goes unmentioned in his account of the origin of the
"natural" polis based on the "natural" connection between
the opposite sexes. Well, even the Catholic church recognizes that same sex
attraction is natural, if sinful if acted upon. Of course, Aristotle did not
agree with the second part of this sentence. Anyway, Aristotle knew that his
argument that the polis is natural was and is and always will be controversial.
He made it anyway - perhaps to complete what "nature" intended.
"Schlueter’s
natural law liberalism, then, is a chimera, a combination of parts of
fundamentally different creatures that does not and cannot exist in reality.
The two are, in fact, contradictory and mutually exclusive. One wishes their
union was an option, but wishful thinking is not a substitute for political
philosophy."
Schultz: Deneen at his best. I am happy to see that Notre Dame will employ Deneen as I can think of other Catholic institutions that would not. Can you think of any?
Schultz: Deneen at his best. I am happy to see that Notre Dame will employ Deneen as I can think of other Catholic institutions that would not. Can you think of any?
P.S. I have reconsidered my equating Deneen with the likes
of Chris Wolfe, et. al. and have decided that he is worth reading. They are
not.
No comments:
Post a Comment