Russ Shafer Landau's Theory Of The Natural Law Theory

1284 Words6 Pages
The Natural Law Theory The Natural Law Theory is one of many theories that author Russ Shafer Landau wrote about in his book, The Fundamentals of Ethics. The Natural Law can be quite difficult to understand, which may be why many don 't approve or agree with it. It says that the actions human beings do are right because they are natural, and wrong actions are unnatural. In order to understand and utilize this theory many feel that humans have to believe in God, although some may find it easier to understand it, believing in God is not an essential part of the theory. Also it can still hold truth and can be a good way for humans to morally live by. The way the theory works is that people who do things that follow human nature is in the right…show more content…
A Scottish philosopher, David Hume, came up with an argument that tested if Natural Law is able to actually allow humans to gain moral knowledge. He stated, "There are only two sorts of claims: conceptual truths or empirical truths." A conceptual truth is something that can be known just by understanding it, and an empirical truth is only known by relying on our five senses to have knowledge. Natural Law contests his argument, by acknowledging that humans must know what their human nature is, and knows whether an assortment of actions fulfills it. I acknowledge the meaning of Natural Law, and agree with the ways it originates morals. Human nature is a topic that can be argued multiple times, yet there may never be an exact conclusion as to how things should be. Natural Law explains why certain things are right and why others are wrong. First, it is obvious that Natural Law is solely based on humans, since we have the capability of being moral agents. Also it is evident that morality isn 't based on opinions alone, therefore, allowing nature to fill in the blanks to the unanswered…show more content…
People debate on a daily basis regarding this, and wonder if Natural Law is correct then how people can have abortions and it not be considered murder. Being based off of three things: (1) It is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being. (2) A fetus is an innocent human being. (3) Therefore, it is always wrong to deliberately kill a fetus. These arguments come from the book, The Fundamentals of Ethics. There is a great deal of bewildering statements in this argument, therefore making it easy to argue. My understanding and answer to this objection is that while some may use one meaning of select words, others use different meaning. In order for one to have an accurate understanding of abortion they must compare using the same category of the select words used. If we are thinking biologically then statement two is correct, therefore, biologically abortion is wrong. If we look at it with a scientific point of view, then abortion is okay. When compared scientifically, then statement one is as if it 's meant for people who oppose pro-choice. Statement one assumes truth of the conclusion it is intended for. Meaning, people without anything to support their opinion other than that statement, has nothing to actually compare. These statements were made for the people that are pro-life and have no standing with people that are

More about Russ Shafer Landau's Theory Of The Natural Law Theory

Open Document