Explain the Theory of Natural Law

Natural law is the idea that principles of morals and rights are inherit tent in nature and not human-made such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind. Which means that laws are made by morals and principles of nature and not by mankind.

Natural law is a concept with a long history dating back to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Despite some variations among philosophers one point of agreement was understood as “that process in nature by which human beings, through the use of sound reason, were able to perceive what was morally right

Natural law, the idea that man is born with certain rights, began to take hold in Europe during the 18th century. Natural law recognizes the rights that man alone has at birth,

Common law is created from the customs and precedents set in the country rather than statutes created by Congress. Common law allowed more discretion on behalf of the judges originally, but less room for change down the line. Natural law is the basis for human contact and does not waiver on moral principles. Natural rights are less vague than the law; meaning, natural rights are part of a person. You cannot be a person if you give up your natural rights, these rights are inalienable, and are the rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Legal positivism emphasizes the belief that law is synonymous with positive norms. The norms of legal positivism are created through common law. Legal positivism also argues that the legality of an issue does not settle the morality of issues; legality is always separate from

Natural law- the idea that principles of morals and rights are inherent in nature and not human made; such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind. Positive law-human made law.

This is the major difference between positivist and natural law thinkers. Natural law is the combination of laws and morals while legal positivism is the seperation of laws and morals. Legal positivism declares that morality is irrelevant to the identification of what is valid law and that the criteria for the validity of a legal rule or law in a society is that it has the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign and its agents. Raz, a positivist, stated that ‘the validity of a law can never depend on its morality’ 6 Positive law or positivism is

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Natural law theory is based on human nature and its predisposition to do good. The determination of what’s good and evil, however, is often drawn

Aristotle defines the function of a human being as an activity of the rational soul. He argues that most functions of humans, such as being alive or having sense perception, are shared with plants and animals and cannot be distinct functions of human beings. The only remaining possibility which is not shared with things other than human beings, according to Aristotle, is the part of the soul that has reason. Human function, therefore, is an “activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason.” But further qualification must be made when referring to the something’s function in the context of a greatest good; in this case, it is not sufficient for something to simply function, it must also function well. For example, the function of a pianist is to play the piano, but the function of a good pianist is to play a piano well. According to Aristotle, adding a function’s best virtue to it will work without qualification to make something excellent in every case. So, the function of a human being is an activity of the rational soul and the greatest good for a human is activity of the rational soul in accordance with its virtue.

In regards to human law, Aquinas believes that law governs practical reason. However, practical reason, which consists of reasoning through facts and logic, and theoretical reason, which consists of reasoning by theories that have not yet been proven, can both be a part of law since they both go from premises to conclusions. Consequently, it can be said that, as far as theoretical reasoning is concerned, it can go from theories that cannot be proven to conclusions that can and we can come to these conclusions through reasoning. The same movement from general principles to specific conclusions can also be seen in practical, human reasoning. The conclusions that humans get to, through reasoning, are known as human laws.

“However, for Aquinas, natural is not just a matter of preference but a matter of morality” (Wilkens 195). Wilkens, points out that Aquinas, acknowledges that some people see their point of view as natural, however, it is not truly natural, it is their view of natural or their perspective. Perspective and natural are very two different things. The same can be said for morality, there are many different perspectives of morality, however perspectives do not define morality. Circumstances, of a specific situation can conclude what is morally correct in that matter, or what someone ought and ought not to do. For, example contraception is not natural birth control, however, it is very natural for a husband and wife to use birth control, if they

The first principle of law according to Aquinas is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this” (ST I-II.94.2). The other precepts are self-preservation, procreation, education of offspring, seek truth avoid ignorance, and live in society. Aquinas believes the natural law is written on every human and every human has equal knowledge of good and evil; however, once individual circumstances are factored in, it is dependent upon humans to follow or ignore it. However, Aquinas believes that “the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men 's hearts” (ST I-II.94.6) but through bad habits of the society it could be weakened. According to Aquinas, the natural law has two main aspects. The first of these is that “the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles” (ST I-II.94.5), which means God can add to, but not take away from, the law. This only applies to the primary precepts; the secondary precepts may change in some particular aspects. The second aspect is that “the written law is said to be given for the correction of the natural law” (ST I-II.94.6.ad 1); to put it simply, human laws are necessary to fill in the gaps/loopholes left from the natural law. Aquinas’ teachings shows that the actions of human is either good or bad depending on whether it conforms to reason.

Have you ever taken something that didn’t belong to you? Did you feel some type of way that didn’t seem like a normal feeling way when you took that item? If so, then you have experienced and come across the real theory called ‘Natural Law’. Any form of moral theory is considered to be the human behavior of our daily lives.

Obeying by the natural law theory is the only true and moral way to live life; especially a life lived in God’s image. God’s presence is a guiding factor to obtaining a moral and virtuous life, which can only be obtained by following the natural law theory. God created a set of laws as a supreme guide for humans to live life, like any law these laws were created to ensure wellbeing for everyone. The laws he created are the civil law, the natural law and the divine law God created them from a law much superior than the rest, one which only God himself has the knowledge of, the eternal law. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil(Magee 1). Of

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.