But there is little or no clarity about what this actually means, because there is no discussion by Maritain of actual statesmanship. The discussion is, rather, about natural law and the modern view of rights. This discussion of modern rights philosophy, moreover, is limited almost exclusively to Thomas Hobbes and other radical moderns for whom, Schall properly notes, rights are mere whim and unlimited will. As presented by Schall, however, Maritain seems oddly unaware of the more classical and sensible understanding of rights articulated by the American Founders. Further, nearly every sermon, speech, and essay by the Founders on this subject stressed the connection between morality and self-government, between the commandments of revelation and the precepts of natural reason.
Nothing is more vain than to seek to unite men by a philosophic minimum.
Because there will always be philosophic disagreement about the most profound metaphysical questions, Maritain seems to say, there can be no strictly philosophic or rational agreement about political justice. There is perhaps today no more urgent task than to clarify and defend the principles of natural law. Maritain's view of natural law, however, seems as confused as it is respectful. If not explicitly historicist, this certainly intimates a progressive view of moral understanding. Father Schall could not, of course, treat every nuance in Maritain's thought in this single volume, and some of the criticism made here might be qualified by a fuller treatment.