Sound Arguments Concerning The Theory Of Natural Law

The debate of what us and is not moral has long been debated, a continuous search for answers explaining the purposes and origins of thought, actions, and being. With an attempt to answer these questions, many philosophers, religions, and people have examined these phenomena in the past (and still continue today) and drawn some similar and vastly different conclusions and theories. The Natural Law Theory pursues understanding of the way the world works in accordance with purpose. It seeks to determine if each object and occurrence indeed have a purpose, and what that purpose may be. Despite the evidence in support of it, the Theory of Natural Law does not rest on a sound argument. Modern science has invalidated the premises that uphold the

During Aristotle’s lifetime (384-322 BC) he created the idea of the Theory of Natural Law. The Natural Law Theory is the humanistic-centered theory that everything has a naturally occurring purpose “built-in” to it, including nature (Rachels and Rachels EMP 59), in other words, everything that exists, exists for a purpose (and for man) and if it didn’t have a purpose it wouldn’t exist. Aristotle used four questions to understand the purpose of things, the fourth question, which could be answered about anything, being “what is it used for?” (Rachels and Rachels EMP 59). He believed when it came to discerning what the purpose of nature was, the question became about the effect of it, nature being the cause of the outcome. To explain the purpose of nature he used biological and environmental examples. As a biological example he concluded we have teeth, teeth are used to chew, therefore the purpose of having teeth is for chewing (Rachels and Rachels EMP 59). To explain natural phenomena, he used the example of the rain falling to water the plants, which in turn grow so animals can eat and use them, and animals exist for the pleasure of, use, and consumption by human beings (Rachels and Rachels EMP

This law states that when things serve their natural purpose, the world is at equilibrium and when things do not or are unable to serve their natural purpose, disorder ensued. For example; “blind eyes are a defect, and draught is a natural evil” (Rachels and Rachels EMP 60). The law of nature was also applicable to morality, asserting that “natural” acts are moral and “unnatural” ones are immoral. Take the example that the natural purpose for sex is to make babies and because in this case sex is serving it’s natural purpose it is moral. Therefore, any type of sexual act done not intended to create life (fourplay, gay sex, masturbation, phone sex, etc.) because it is conducted without the end goal of fulfilling it’s natural purpose, is unnatural and immoral (Rachels and Rachels EMP 61). This type of thought is still prevalent in today’s culture in the Catholic Church, Mormonism, as well as some denominations of the Christian