Natural Right and History book club questions

1. 1.

   Strauss argues that historicism — the view that all thought is historically conditioned — is self-refuting. Is this a compelling argument, or can historicism be defended against it?

2. 2.

   Weber held that science cannot adjudicate between ultimate values. Do you agree, and if so, what follows for how we make political judgments?

3. 3.

   Strauss wrote Natural Right and History in the aftermath of World War II and the failure of Weimar democracy. How much does that historical context shape the argument, and how well does the argument travel to other contexts?

4. 4.

   Strauss's reading of Locke is controversial: he argues that Locke's natural right theory is a departure from classical natural right dressed up in theological language. What is at stake in this reading for how we understand liberal democracy?

5. 5.

   Is there a difference between saying 'there are no universal moral standards' and saying 'I cannot give you a rational proof that my moral standards are correct'? Does Strauss conflate these?

6. 6.

   Strauss argues that modern social science, by claiming to be value-neutral, actually undermines the rational defense of liberal democratic values. Is this still a live concern in your view?

7. 7.

   The distinction between ancient and modern natural right — between a politics oriented toward the common good and one oriented toward individual rights — is one of the book's major themes. Which framework do you find more defensible?

8. 8.

   How would you respond to someone who argues that Strauss's recovery of classical natural right is politically reactionary — that it was used by his students to justify neoconservative foreign policy?

9. 9.

   Is it possible to have a defensible basis for moral and political judgment without claiming access to natural right in Strauss's sense? What would that look like?

10. 10.

    Natural Right and History is a difficult text. Does the difficulty serve the argument — because the question is genuinely hard — or does it function to exclude non-specialist readers from a conversation about matters of broad importance?

11. 11.

    Strauss's influence extended to generations of political philosophers and policymakers, especially in the United States. What is the relationship between his academic argument and its political reception?

How to run the discussion

• Pick six to eight, not all of them. An hour of real discussion covers fewer questions than anyone expects, and racing the list is what makes a book club feel like homework.
• Open with what people noticed, not what they concluded. Asking for a verdict first hardens opinions before anyone has heard each other.
• Let the disagreement run. The questions below that split a room are the ones worth the time; the ones everyone answers the same way can be skipped.
• Ask the quiet person a specific question. A direct, narrow question is far easier to answer than an open invitation to contribute.