Spirit of Rights. Response to Comments
Spirit of Rights. Response to Comments

Summary/Abstract: Dan Edelstein responds to the comments by Thérence Carvalho, Olivier Grenouilleau, Emmanuelle de Champs and Ivo Cerman. He sums up the argument of his book and stresses that it was not only about 18th century and physiocracy. He explains that the book was motivated by his efforts to bridge the gap which appeared in US historiography, where an older trend stressed natural law, while a second newer trend focuses only on natural rights and the twentieth century. Edelstein follows the view that natural rights and natural law are two sides of the same coin. He defends the importance of Roman Law and Montesquieu for the critique of slavery. In the responses Edelstein underscores the religious grounding of natural law, the importance of medieval thinkers and the merits of the Catholic Church for renewing the interest in natural law at the end of the nineteenth century. Even though we like the result of this religious thinking, we do not like the metaphysical foundation on which it stands.

• Details
• Contents