Outline three criticisms of natural law and then defend natural law against these criticisms.

Essay by renren January 2004

download word file, 7 pages 4.0 1 reviews

Downloaded 211 times

Natural law, existing as an embodiment of what is considered as laws drawn from nature and those that are perceived as implanted within humans, is enforced as binding onto human actions and lives in juxtaposition with laws that have been set forth by humans and the judicial sphere. The theory of natural law is very controversial, in which the subject matter is very much criticized, but can be defended by a number of theorists and philosophers. This paper will outline and defend against the criticisms of natural law in regards that natural law does not provide protection, it is very difficult to perceive, and becomes more an more obsolete through time, with the support of various philosophers and theorist throughout history.

First off, one criticism of natural law could be that natural law to some is seen to serve no purpose. This being that natural law does not protect society.

A natural law against murder or theft would certainly not protect a society from murderers and thieves. In other words the natural right to life would not stop a mugger from stabbing its victim or stop a soldier from killing its enemy in a war. Even the natural right to property is not at all as useful as sturdy gates and locks. Take for example; if all Jews of Nazi-occupied Europe had a natural right to life, yet the Nazi's were able to kill all six million of them, then clearly the natural rights are of no value what so ever as protective devices. In addition to this idea of natural law lacking protection, early in the seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes as well argued that the nature of man was not such that one could assume natural law from it, or rather he argued that the natural law placed no...