Natural Law Theory Essay Example

The argument that is being addressed focuses on Natural Law Theory. This theory is about how moral standards are based on human nature. People have a natural inclination to act a certain way.  The issue is that there are many objections to the Natural Law Theory.  I am going to argue that The Natural Law Theory does not provide clear, objective standards with which to make moral decisions.

To illustrate, Natural Law Theory is a theory that identifies objective moral standards. One of the arguments against it is the fact that just because something is unnatural does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. A strong example of this is gay marriage. It is not a bond between man and woman and people choose to regard it as a negative issue. People should have the right to love whoever they want. Yes, it is less common than heterosexual marriage and occurs less in our world. Despite it being uncommon does not mean it should be painted as a negative act. It is simply two people who view love differently.There is nothing wrong with being unnatural or different if it is not hurting anyone. To conclude, just because something is not natural does not mean that it is morally wrong. 

Moreover, it can be considered subjective when it comes to what people believe is actually natural or unnatural. What someone may regard as unnatural another person might say it is natural. According to Rachels, “First, “unnatural” might merely be a statistical idea (Rachels, 1986, pp. 42). Some examples of this would be brushing our teeth, playing tennis, wearing clothes, and driving cars. These are examples of things that are not meant to be but are regarded as normal by society.  It may have been regarded as weird, especially in the past. Now, things are different and those ideas and use of our bodies has changed dramatically. Most people will not find it unnatural in society to drive a car to get to work or to brush their teeth before bed. Consquentely, what can be considered natural or unnatural is purely subjective.

However, some could make the argument that there are bad things in society that are considered unnatural.  This could be in favor of The Natural Law Theory regarding unnatural circumstances as wrong. A major example of this is the act of committing murder. People in society are meant to die naturally. They are meant to reach a certain age and let nature take its course in determining when an individual is supposed to die. Murder deteriorates that and is a serious issue in society. Murder is the decision to end someone’s life prematurely by killing them before they are naturally supposed to die. This is an example of when The Natural Law Theory is strong in determining what is morally right. I will argue that this is one out of only a few examples where applying it makes sense. We can conclude, there are examples we can apply The Natural Law Theory to but only in some situations.

On the contrary, there are many flaws to The Natural Law Theory that overlook the circumstances where the theory can be applied. The stronger arguments are raised from objections against the theory.  Another objection to the theory is the argument that people are considered to be naturally good in their nature. I would say that it is not true. People are constantly looking out for themselves in society. It is always about how they can benefit and what is in it for them if they are in a situation where they are helping someone else. There is a whole theory on this topic called ethical egoism. It justifies why people should only look out for themselves. People do not have trust in each other and the ability to compromise naturally. Rachels argues, “On the contrary, if each person looks after his or her own interests, everyone will be better off” (Rachels, 1986, pp.73). This is stating that the best option is for people to look out for themselves instead of altruistically helping others. This ties into The Natural Law Theory because it objects to the idea that people are inherently good.  There is a whole theory about how people benefit when they look out for themselves. There is the theory of altruism but in the end people are focused on how they benefit and what is good for them. To sum it up, people are not considered to be naturally good.

In addition, Natural Law Theory focuses on the view of the world but disregards science. For example, scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and Darwin have stated their views on The Natural Law Theory. They argue that “What happens just happens, due to the laws of cause and effect” (Rachels, 1986, pp. 57). They are noting the fact that what is natural is due to science. The only natural laws are biology, physics, and chemistry. They argue that “To the extent that one accepts the worldview of modern science, one will reject the worldview of natural-law theory” (Rachels,1986, pp. 57). They were discussing how this theory can be disregarded and instead be explained by science. This an interesting take on the theory, not only does it have strong objections but it ties science into philosophy. There are a lot of instances in nature that can be explained scientifically. Therefore, science is a better explanation of how nature occurs rather than The Theory of Natural Law.            

To conclude, I have argued that The Theory of Natural Law is not a sound theory. It does not do a good job of providing objective standards in which to make moral decisions. The first objection made to the theory was that just because something is unnatural does not mean that it is wrong. The example was gay marriage. The second objection was that the idea of what is natural or unnatural is a subjective view. There are many normal everyday things that were not meant to happen by nature but are normal in society. The third statement was for the Natural Law Theory. The idea of unnatural acts being a negative thing was demonstrated by the idea of committing a murder. It is unnatural and morally wrong but the Natural Law Theory still does not apply in that many situations. The third objection was that natural occurrences in nature can be explained strictly by the laws of science. There are many objections to this theory that explain why this theory is outdated and does not define what is morally right or wrong. It is a theory that can provide insight or explanations but it has too many flaws. Many philosophers have refuted this theory and some created new possible theories. Some examples are The Divine Command Theory and Ethical Egoism. These are theories that relate to religion and a moral compass guiding people toward moral acts. There are many theories and approaches to philosophy. The Theory of Natural Law is not one of the ones that are still relevant today. People have many different approaches, opinions, and perspectives that lead to new explanations and theories. Society is constantly changing and so are philosophical views.