Leo Strauss, who was the first philosopher I ever considered myself a disciple of, claimed that the difficulty with upholding Aristotle’s natural right is that Aristotle’s teleology has been refuted by modern science.
The difficulty with Strauss saying this is that there is no evidence that he understood a single argument that Aristotle gave for why nature acts for an end.
Let me issue that as a challenge to all the Straussians, or anyone else who is interested: I say that Leo Strauss shows no evidence of understanding Aristotle’s teleology. Aristotle’s arguments are clear- but where are they even hinted at in Strauss?
The arguments, among others that could be given, and put in bare syllogism form are:
1.) What happens always or for the most part happens for the sake of something
Nature acts always or for the most part
2.) art imitates nature
but an artist acts for the sake of something
3.) matter is for the sake of form
matter and form are natural
to which I include
My dog comes in the room because she wants belly-rubs
My dog is natural.