The third element of an ideology of “total war” is found in Thomas Hobbes restriction of individual right- with the claim that the authority of the sovereign is the sole basis for law. It is important to understand why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function for governing a population, and has no just basis for governing a population.
This was present, as of January 2008, in Leo Strauss' treatment of “Natural Right” in his book 'Natural Right and History'. Section 1 and section 5 of the argument were formed by Paul Ricoeur and conveyed in informal conversations with myself, Marcello Villaverde and others during a break in one of his seminars at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1989.
Aside from fleshing out the history surrounding the concept of Natural right, Strauss makes two major claims concerning natural right: 1) the basis of natural right; and 2) what Ricoeur called the "social claim".
1) the basis of Natural Right-
The basis of natural right, according to Strauss, is the fear of death from violent attack. But according to Ricoeur this is not only the 'basis' of Natural right, but also the original 'claim' of natural right. Strauss just doesn't state the claim. The idea of right is justice- i.e. the correctness of the claim communicated to others. Here is the “original claim” in stages, as Ricoeur formed it: a) "it is right(just) that; b) I do whatever is available within my power to defend against the other- "enemy" - from violent attack; c) because I fear death”.
but this is only the first part of the claim... because according to Ricoeur any "just" claim also contains the remaining parts: d) “and you know this to be true; e) because to fear death is the same for you".
The basic claim of natural right is "just"- is "right"- because it is true.....for all people.
To go further into Strauss statement from his derivation of the basis of natural right to the basis of the fear of death means we must look elsewhere, as Strauss does not elaborate it. The basis of the fear of death though is unstated in NR&H(at least as of January of 2008), but is found in two other philosophers- Immanuel Kant and Theodor Adorno.
As Kant would put it, the basis of the fear of death is the same for all people because of our pathologically affective nature- the fact that we are creatures that feel and that this feeling can be communicated. Kant calls this the "sensus communis"- the common sense. (But it is not the common sense of normal reasoning that we normally associate with). The concept of the "common sense", shared by humans, exists according to Kant, because we do communicate. Thus it is the common sense we share at the basis of experience that makes experience the same and communicable for us, and what makes the claim of natural right thus "just" and "right"- because it is "true". The original claim of natural right is right, is just, because of the "just" nature of the fight against death that we all know to be true.
The Fear rooted at the basis of natural right has a more physical root in the “common sense” that is not expressed in Kant, because fear is one of a type of "sufferings". Pain and fear are thus the physical roots of this "common sense", and so a more physical expression that is closer to this root is found in Theodor Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics'. In ND Adorno drills down to the root of this pathologically affective root of communication in a phrase that I can find no equal- "the physical moment says that suffering "ought not to be". This phrase expresses that the feeling of suffering, including then pain and fear, is itself simultaneously a type of "saying" that says "stop". Because of this "saying" in suffering, this inherent communicable nature of suffering, because it is the same for others and they thus know it, we can make the claim to others of unjust injury.
Some have described suffering as "being towards death" (see Elaine Scarry "the body in pain"), because to suffer "feels like dying". This is what we know physically of death, as we do not experience death ourselves but only see others die.
The fear of death is rooted in the suffering we feel, the basic unjust feel of it, and the claim of natural right can be made because others know this as well. It implies the duty that because we know this we "ought not" to do this to others. So natural right has a dialectical relationship with duty- there is always duty. Strauss is correct to say that the feeling of natural right is primary to duty because it is always what is experienced IN US.
It is in this sense that Jefferson is indubitably right to claim in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”.
2) The "social claim" of natural right.
Strauss asserts the main 'social claim' of natural right- that "the greater should govern the lesser". This claim of natural right is correct, but why?
It is correct because of how this relationship between "greater" and "lesser" is formed- in the contest of subordination. These contests we know as contests of election, appointment, or force. The contest of subordination through force is the use of force to change the relationship between the parties, from equals or rivals, to one superior and one lesser, and in the pushing down of the lesser the victor becomes greater. It is contest then that makes true - that justifies- that makes 'just' the subordination of the other. This is the truth in the social claim of natural right that the greater should govern the lesser, in contest it has been proven.
3) So the two main claims of natural right- that of the contest of the individual against death, and that of the contest to determine the social order, are expressed as rights through the JUSTIFICATION of CONTEST.
4) So far I have no disagreement at all with Strauss' elaboration of Natural Right. (as of January 2008).
5) One then can return to the Hobbes notion of the suppression of individual rights subordinate to the "authority" of the sovereign as the sole basis for law, in order to round out why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function and has no just basis for governing a population.
Hobbes restricts this basis to the authority described in the "social claim"- the social relationship of subordination between "greater" and "lesser". But both Hobbes and Strauss (as of January 2008) ignore the "authority"- what makes the basic claim of natural right "just"- which is TRUTH. There is the "authority" of truth...the primary "justness" of the basic claim of natural right. Strauss- as of January 2008- is wrong to ignore it.
Human freedom is thus found through an "order that provides it", but in accordance with the limitations of the "logic of sense". As the "social claim" of natural right is based on the first "basic claim" of natural right, it is indisputable that within natural law the "authority" of the sovereign is limited by any system overly despotic- that inflicts unjust suffering on its people by mere fiat. In natural law the sovereign is restricted by the physical tenets of respect in the common "law" and truth of human life- that the physical moment says that suffering ought not to be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment