The two commentaries are different in orientation and style. But they share, I believe, an interest in questions the book raises but does not tackle explicitly: Mark Gould critically outlines the sociology of natural law that may be derived from my reconstruction and Csaba Szaló suggests that my argument on the centrality of universalism is disruptive in relation to the contemporary scepticism towards any such claims. As it seeks to account for the natural law foundations of modern social theory, my book would then fail to conform to contemporary intellectual sensibilities both inside and outside sociology. I agree (and actually am rather glad) that this is the case. Let me reflect a bit further on each commentary.