Essay Sample on Universal Laws: Deciphering Right and Wrong Deeds

Introduction

How does one ascertain that a deed is right or wrong? This question might have lingered around many people. The fact that an act is right or false maybe draw from the nature of the deed or laws set up by the relevant ruling government. According to Aristotle, natural laws are universal. They are drawn from the global good and nature rather than the societal rules. For instance, it is wrong to take someone's life. The natural law is a law that stands universally. Other codes are only relevant in certain areas or states or under individual communities. Taking into consideration of a law on marijuana usage, some states consider it legal while others do not. Therefore this is not a natural law. In this paper, I will draw an argument on the types of natural laws and distinguish them from political and legal regulations. Also, a debate on the changeability of natural law will be drawn.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Jonathan (91), natural law can be categorized as theist and atheist. These two categories bring a broader perspective of the natural law theory, as stated by Aristotle. Atheist uses reasoning and human thinking and knowledge to come up with laws. In this case, the natural forces that are morally correct applied as law. It is not clear, according to Aristotle, that natural laws are universal, while in the case of atheists, rules derived from the laws governing natural events. The definition implied that; different communities have different beliefs. Therefore, the conformity of the believes may not be the same; hence, a gap in the moral nature of the derived laws. For instance, when discussing the moral status of homosexuality, different communities have different views on it. From human thinking, if sex is to derive pleasure and orgasm, homosexuality serves the purpose and can be justified. But the main argument to counter this moral behavior could be drawn from whether it is a safe way to derive sexual pleasure or not. Therefore, the atheist type of natural law could have gaps to differentiate it from legal and political regulations.

On the other hand, theistic natural law theory believes that natural laws are derived from a natural being that makes the laws and the duty of the subject is to follow. In this case, a more profound meaning can be drawn from Aquinas studies that used Aristotle's natural law theory in studying theology. According to Aquinas, laws were made by good for the human to follow. However, humans could distinguish what is right from wrong. Aquinas managed to study the religion from the perspective of Aristotle. Though secular scriptures were abolished during his time, he managed to draw a deeper meaning of the biblical scripture using Aristotle's thoughts. For instance, when analyzing the question of homosexuality through the atheist's views. The written law does not allow homosexuality. The validity can be drawn from the script that requires sex to be specifically for reproduction. In this case, when two same sexes engaging in sex, there is no possibility what so ever that conception might take place. Therefore, from the atheistic view, homosexuality is neither morally nor naturally justified. The question that arises from the two categories of natural law theory is what distinguishes theist from worldly natural law?

Aristotle discussed the natural law and distinguished it from the political and legal requirements (Hochstrasser, vol 58). Though the distinction between them was not evident in his account, still we can rethink his script and spot some relationships. Borrowing from the above types of natural laws theory, a deed may be justified even though it is naturally wrong. For instance, taking a life is naturally immoral. Therefore, any person who is found guilty of killing has no other mean of justifying his deed. Though this could be the case, we can further analyze the conditions and situations that lead to death. For example, when a soldier kills a civilian in combat, it is morally wrong to take an innocent life, but it was not the intention of the soldier to choose life. Therefore, this may be acceptable, and no legal actions may imply against the soldier. Also, the soldiers intend to bring peace. Therefore, any life taken in the line of duty by the soldiers is for peacemaking. However, justifiable an act can be, the motive behind it is placed into consideration. Under the natural law theory by Aristotle, taking a life is not moral and has a name for it. It is murder. According to Finnis (2010), the natural immoral act has names. For example, murder, robbery, rape, and fornication. These are an immoral act in every community and country, but how come one justifies murder? Can rape be explained the same way death is? Some laws are hard to justify as compared to others.

The changeability of justice, which in natural and truth, which is legal, is somehow confusing. Though Aristotle asserted that natural justice is unchangeable, in his reading, he states that "fire burns both here and in Persia." This statement is used to mean that subjective truth is universal and may not change regardless of the geographical location (Burns, 143). Towards the end of his passage, Aristotle admits that though it may be hard to change, natural justice, at times it may depend on the moral validity of the act. Aristotle does not give a clear example to explain the changeability or unchangeability of natural law. However, by deeply analyze the statements, the changeability of the law is connected to moral validity of the deed. This concept takes us back to the motive behind an act. To explain this better, we can use a different example. For instance, when a surgeon performs surgery, and the patient dies, this cannot categorize as murder. The operation needed to be taken because it could save the life of the patient. Because the patient died during surgery, we cannot blem it on the doctor as the motive of the doctor was to save the life of the patient. The presence of the patient was at risk; the only way to keep the patient was through the surgery. The surgery failed, but it needed to take place. Death was natural and not caused by the surgeon. Therefore, natural laws may, at a time, be changeable depending on the motive and necessity of the deed.

Aristotle discussed the natural law theory and used different examples to elaborate on the same. in his time, he derived his argument from the life of the city people of the time. Incorporating these laws that were obtained concerning ancient life and connecting it to modern life may be difficult. However, through in-depth analysis and understanding of the terms used, an argument can be drawn that could lead to a bright and elaborate understanding and interpretation of his texts. In this paper, we have summarized a debate on the different types of natural law theories, and a deeper understanding through relevant examples drawn. Also, a discussion on the changeability of natural justice emerged. Though a clear line drawn in this argument, still there is room for further analysis. It is not clear whether some deeds could be justified or not. For instance, is it possible to justify robbery with violence?

Works Cited

Burns, Tony. (1998). Aristotle and natural law. History of Political Thought. 19. 142-166.

Crowe, Jonathan. "Natural Law Theories." Philosophy Compass, vol. 11, no. 2, 2016, pp. 91-101., doi:10.1111/phc3.12315.

Finnis, John. "Natural law theories." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010).

Hochstrasser, Tim J. Natural law theories in the early enlightenment. Vol. 58. Cambridge University Press, 2000.