If you’ve ever observed animals living in their natural habitat, you might see how well off they appear to be. In his Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau brings up the idea that many theorists of Morality and Ethics believe that perhaps the key to morality is understanding our place in the natural order of things, similar to what many animals do with the exception of comprehension. This belief is laid upon the foundation of the Natural Law Theory. This theory explains that good human beings are those who fulfill their true nature; bad human beings are those who don’t. At the core of it all, it tells us that actions are right just because they are natural, and wrong just because they are unnatural. According to this theory, the moral law is
…show more content…
To do what there are the best reasons for doing-while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision.” Although I understand Rachels’ description on morality, I don’t think his view sees eye-to-eye with the natural law theory. Unlike Rachels’ theory, the natural law theory pertains to self-interest. If someone who believed in the natural law theory fulfilled their human nature of being a bully to the elderly, then the elderly wouldn’t benefit from the natural law theory. In that case the person carrying out their duties to fulfill their human nature isn’t considering the interests of those who could be negatively affected. I also think that the natural law theory doesn’t contain the best reasons on why someone would do something. To kill someone and then say that you were just staying loyal to your human nature would still be cruel and wrong on all levels and therefore, wouldn’t be a good reason. With the natural law theory, I don’t think think a reason could be properly justified. The theory simply states that our morality is based upon how we properly use the traits we were born with. It also says that we don’t need to find reasons or think twice about whether our actions stand behind good or bad reasons, as we just have to carry out what the majority have always carried out because that is essentially human
To do what there are the best reasons for doing-while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision.” Although I understand Rachels’ description on morality, I don’t think his view sees eye-to-eye with the natural law theory. Unlike Rachels’ theory, the natural law theory pertains to self-interest. If someone who believed in the natural law theory fulfilled their human nature of being a bully to the elderly, then the elderly wouldn’t benefit from the natural law theory. In that case the person carrying out their duties to fulfill their human nature isn’t considering the interests of those who could be negatively affected. I also think that the natural law theory doesn’t contain the best reasons on why someone would do something. To kill someone and then say that you were just staying loyal to your human nature would still be cruel and wrong on all levels and therefore, wouldn’t be a good reason. With the natural law theory, I don’t think think a reason could be properly justified. The theory simply states that our morality is based upon how we properly use the traits we were born with. It also says that we don’t need to find reasons or think twice about whether our actions stand behind good or bad reasons, as we just have to carry out what the majority have always carried out because that is essentially human