Natural Law theories are indefensible. Discuss.

Holly Sarah Morris 12mn

The theories of Natural Law come with many advantages and also many criticisms. By knowing these advantages and criticisms, it can help you to decide whether the theories of natural law are defensible or not.

In practical terms the Natural Law supplies a basis on which human beings can construct their moral beliefs and rules. As the natural Law tells humanity that killing is bad, human beings can develop more specific ideas about what circumstances might justify killing another human being. It will also make then consider circumstances when killing could be avoided, and because of the natural law should be. Natural law will then extend from individual human beings into the community which they form, and will also shape the political and civil law under which they live. Sp politically made laws, which regulate nations, should be essentially rooted in Natural law. By saying this it can give us a reason for the defence of natural law, and can help us to make up our own minds as to whether natural law is helpful or whether it hinders human beings in life. Natural law combines faith with reason. This helps many people to understand the concept of natural law and can be seen as a way of defending natural law. A desire to follow the will of God, and then commandments in the Bible, is combined with ‘an appreciation of human’s ability to reason’.

Morality, according to this theory, is not just obedience to the arbitrary will of God, but uses and respects human rationality as well. Most people would see this as a way of defending natural law, as it incorporates people’s desire to follow the will of God, so people who are religious will see this as an advantage and will strongly defend the theory behind natural law.

Although there are many ways in which natural law can be defended there are also many criticisms against it too. An obvious problem is that not everybody agrees on this natural law which, it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although there are many ways in which natural law can be defended there are also many criticisms against it too. An obvious problem is that not everybody agrees on this natural law which, it is claimed is present to all. The Catechism argues that this is because of sin, which in Christian thinking can be individual or social. So an individual who is sinful may well claim honestly that they cannot recognise an area of natural law. Equally societies may become accustomed to sinful behaviour and so deny the evil of it according to natural law.

Natural law portrays the idea that there is one common purpose that applies to everyone; this theory is not backed up by the bible, so this is a way in which natural law theories can’t be defended, as there is no real evidence to back up this theory of one single human nature.

Darwinian evolutionary theory has presented problems for the concept of natural law. In this way natural law can’t be defended.

Within natural law the concept of actuality being better than potentiality is difficult to understand and apply to practical ethics. Also the core theory of natural law can also go against common sense, for example it makes adultery ok?

Aquinas says the purpose of humans created by God is to preserve the immortal soul. For humans this is to live, reproduce, learn, live in an ordered society and worship God. So when a man or women commits adultery, natural law does not see this as being a sin, as the man or women is still carrying out one of the five purposes of humans ‘to reproduce’. This is where natural law theories come into question and where I think that they cannot be defended. As to commit adultery is a sin in the eyes of God, and natural law is condoling this sin, and this in indefencable.