Outline Three Criticisms of Natural Law and then Defend Natural Law against These Criticisms
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. …
Enter an email address where the link will be sent:
Link to paper: