The 's Natural Law Theory

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

One field of genetic science which is crucial in society today is medicine where cloning is now possible. The need for moral reasoning is essential in this field because with greater power society must “[recognize] not only the limits of our knowledge but also our vulnerability to being misguided” with an evolving world (Dalai Lama 140). Humans have kept high moral responsibilities over the century when faced with new developments in knowledge. The Dalai Lama suggests that “our technological capacity has reached a critical point” during the past decade and the gap between knowledge and human ethics when making decisions has grown farther apart as new biogenetic science has arose (133). The issue is not whether

The municipal law must be a general, it must be more than just an advice, and it must not be dependent by will of an individual. Both the willing and the unwilling must follow the law. It is a human free will. It is not an agreement; it must establish the bases of authority. However, acting and free will differentiate. We must not act but free-will and opinion to say anything must be allowed. It is therefore, limited and gives us certain rights to community to allow some possible speech. The law is not something that not found from the state but it applies to everyone. It must be made public and presented to the public ahead of time and the rules have to come from a supreme

Philosophers base the idea of objective morality on the assumption that some moral ideals are universal and should be the moral responsibility of everyone. Subjective moralists counter this argument by explaining that each moral decision is independent because each moral situation is unique to its own conditions. Ultimately, these two views shape the nature of moral philosophy and theology, each describing the different natures of morality (Hammond). These two theories have a large impact on the thinking process of humans on an everyday basis. This process then leads up to a person valuing different things more than others. The separation of objective and subjective theories all boil down to whether or not a theory is universal or not. A subjective theory has an absence of universal truths, and an objective theory has universal truths. Two vary popular theories that will take part in my research were the Divine Command Theory, and Natural law theory. Two theories that may seem similar, but in fact are very different.

The contrast between Natural Law and Legal Positivism is a necessary starting point for those who wish to understand the relationship between law and morality, and the most varied manners in which it influences society to this day. When it comes to analyzing which theory offers the most well-rounded idea of law, one can argue that Legal Positivism provides the best definition of what law is at its essence. However, because Legal Positivism came to exist as a critique to what was proposed by Natural Law theorists, it is significant that both are explored in depth as means to support such argument.

They argue that through cloning, we are being God, and religiously, no one can be God, God is one and only he has the power to give or take life. Also, Religion leaders argue that they would be challenged critically to be up-to-date in scientific developments and to carefully evaluate the theological, moral and legal stakes of the innovations. Likewise, James J. Walter [bioethics Chair at Loyola University in Los Angeles] argued that “religious leaders and believers…confronted with scientific developments that are ‘ambiguous morally and theologically,’ should be ‘careful but not wary, hopeful but not wide-eyed, ‘assessing developments as they come advancing’" (qtd. in “Many oppose human cloning”). Courtney S. Campbell [associate professor at Oregon State University] claimed that religious leaders are often seen as ‘problems’ rather than ‘contributors’ to community

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

More than one ethical position on stem cell research could be called "religious"; and as a Christian, could ethically support stem cell research because of its potential for relieving human suffering and enhancing human health and well-being. There is more than one way to be moral, more than one way to translate one's faith commitments into public policy. (185)

On the most surface level, human genetic engineering and human genetic modification are a new and rapidly developing field of science that deals with directly altering the DNA (genetic makeup) of a living human cell. From early science fiction to the present day, taking control of humans’ gen es and directing the flow of evolution has been a subject of debate for many people. Human genetic engineering or HGE tends to bring up thoughts of dystopian futures where altering DNA has unexpectedly resulted in horrible mutant humans that can’t survive and thus the human race perishes, but this is not necessarily the outcome. Since genetic engineering is an emerging field of science, there are still many moral and ethical issues that need to be addressed before continuing research. Atheists and theists both have valid reasons to support / resist the continuation of this field of science. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed the reader has a reasonable understanding of the terms atheism, theism, DNA, genes, genome, and how a persons DNA (their genotype) essentially dictates the physical appearance and abilities that person portrays (their phenotype).

Natural law has a lot of strength and weaknesses, but what is natural law in the first place? Natural law is a universal guide for judging the moral values of our choices, and looks at human in a way that says we at the end of the day know the right thing to do. Weaknesses for natural law are many, one of them is to see good automatically found in nature but the question begs to be asked is everything in nature actually good. Aquinas thought that all people searched for God and this is why they found good, but that wasn’t true back then and definitely isn’t true now. Another weakness is that having babies is important in natural law so does this mean that people who are incapable of having babies our unnatural. It is believed that moral

“Genetic engineering differs from cloning in key ways. Whereas cloning produces genetically exact copies of organisms, genetic engineering refers to processes in which scientists manipulate genes to create purposefully different versions of organisms—and, in some cases, entirely new living things”, duplication of genetic cells is known as human cloning. Development of genetic engineering biotechnologies undermines the natural autonomy of life. Does genetic engineering interfere with God’s natural order or a manipulation of God creation and the intended purpose of our lives? Genetic engineering goes against the theological belief of the authority of God and religion governance order. This new paradigm of genetic engineering reproduction of life as we know is an interference of the creation of God’s and life. I believe if we continue the use of genetic engineering cloning it is against everything we believe in, genetic engineering is not God’s will and it should be prohibited,

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

In order to address the scenarios in this assignment, one must define the when life begins. According to Thomas Aquinas God created the universe and all plants, animals and life of all types under the doctrine of External Law. Based on his vision, God instilled Natural Law in law to fulfill the parameters of External Law. Self-preservation is not only a function of protecting one’s self being, but also by ensuring the species survives. This is accomplished through the second inclination of procreation. Aquinas’ teachings proclaim that God created the universe and by doing so, created all life. So logic must dictate that life begins at conception and that the developing fetus has already been instilled with Natural Law.

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.

In terms of writing and dramatic style, naturalism is a heightened form of realism. Naturalistic dramas generally follow guidelines created by Aristotle, the Greek philosopher. These rules are known as “the three unities”: action, place and time. The general rule is that the events of the play should take place in the same location over a single day. Naturalism was made popular by the French writer Émile Zola, and his principles were modified by the French for the stage in the late nineteenth-century. Zola’s rules, known as “the three principles of naturalism” formed the basis for the naturalist movement in theatre. The first principle, faire vrai, was that the play had to be realistic and be as close a study of the human condition as possible. The second principle, faire grand, was that the play had to be meaningful and each theme or event had to be of some significance. And lastly, the third principle, faire simple, was that the play had to be simple and the writer should not to clutter the play with unnecessary sub-plots or dialogue. Naturalism spread through Europe in the twentieth-century until it reached the USSR. Stanislavski, a Russian theatre producer, thought that melodrama was unrealistic and unbelievable. Therefore, he set up the Moscow Art Theatre, in which he created new rules for theatre which all of his actors had to follow. In naturalistic acting, characters had to be realistic and believable, and the costumes needed to reflect the different character’s