American Greatness It is with some hesitancy that I enter the lists once again against Michael Anton. On political and social issues, I have no differences with him and can only applaud his writings on the fallen state of our constitutional republic, while admiring his forcefulness in expressing our shared views. Where we necessarily part company is in his defense of the natural right teachings of the late, esteemed Harry Jaffa. Although his (to my knowledge) latest polemic against the deniers of natural right, does not mention me specifically, I do nonetheless feel implicated in this imbroglio. Christopher Zeeman, the pugnacious blogger whom Anton was addressing, was pillorying natural rights thinking apropos of something I had posted. And the “New Right” which Anton scolds for its improper or confused thoughts was certainly imprinted by my views about rights.
Like Professor Jaffa, Anton puts his debating opponents (like me) in what seems to be an untenable either/or situation. Either we must accept natural right as a universal moral standard or else be relegated to the dark pit of moral relativism and (Heaven forfend!) historicism. According to Michael: the reason why natural right is less corrosive than nihilism should be obvious. If the truth is that there are no truths—no rules, principles, hierarchies, etc.—then men are free of all obligation and may rightly (if “rightly” even exists as a concept in such a world) behave however they want.” I have no understanding why my choice is either to accept Anton’s idea of natural right or embrace nihilism as the only possible alternative. Anton also seems to assume that natural right, which is a concept that gained currency in the 17th century, is the same as natural law, a concept that originated with the medieval schoolmen and more distantly, with the Stoics and Aristotle.
Read Full Article Here…(amgreatness.com)
Caravan to Midnight
