Decision-Making: Natural Law vs. Relativism
Compare and Contrast Natural Law and Relativism as approaches to decision-making.
Morality serves two universal human needs. It regulates both conflicts of interest between people and those within the individual born of different desires and drives that cannot be satisfied at the same time (Wong, D. 1993). Natural Law and Relativism are two opposing approaches to morality. In comparing and contrasting the two approaches I will also briefly outline the background and principles of each. Natural law can be defined as a set of principles, based on what are assumed to be the permanent characteristics of human nature, that can serve as a standard for evaluating conduct. It is considered fundamentally unchanging and universally applicable. Natural law holds that the basis for moral law, for what people should and should not do, is to be found in our nature as human beings. This means that what we are as human beings contains indications of how we should live (Harrington, D. 2009). Although the concept of natural law has been expressed differently by various philosophers all descriptions have a common thread; that man must live according to his true self (Varga, 1978).
Although Aristotle did not use the term ‘natural law’ many medieval philosophers considered him as one of the first exponents of the fundamentals of natural law. Stoic philosophy was the first to introduce the term ‘natural law’ with the Stoics emphasising nature and the moral requirement to accept and conform to what is given in nature. This Greek philosophy spanned several centuries and greatly influenced the Roman philosopher Cicero. Cicero (d. 43BC) was a strong advocate of natural law and spoke of natural law as the innate power of reason to direct action. Catholic natural law theory was formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas over seven centuries ago. He identified one fundamental norm of natural law: do good and avoid evil. Doing good in this context is following reason’s lead to actualise human
Morality serves two universal human needs. It regulates both conflicts of interest between people and those within the individual born of different desires and drives that cannot be satisfied at the same time (Wong, D. 1993). Natural Law and Relativism are two opposing approaches to morality. In comparing and contrasting the two approaches I will also briefly outline the background and principles of each. Natural law can be defined as a set of principles, based on what are assumed to be the permanent characteristics of human nature, that can serve as a standard for evaluating conduct. It is considered fundamentally unchanging and universally applicable. Natural law holds that the basis for moral law, for what people should and should not do, is to be found in our nature as human beings. This means that what we are as human beings contains indications of how we should live (Harrington, D. 2009). Although the concept of natural law has been expressed differently by various philosophers all descriptions have a common thread; that man must live according to his true self (Varga, 1978).
Although Aristotle did not use the term ‘natural law’ many medieval philosophers considered him as one of the first exponents of the fundamentals of natural law. Stoic philosophy was the first to introduce the term ‘natural law’ with the Stoics emphasising nature and the moral requirement to accept and conform to what is given in nature. This Greek philosophy spanned several centuries and greatly influenced the Roman philosopher Cicero. Cicero (d. 43BC) was a strong advocate of natural law and spoke of natural law as the innate power of reason to direct action. Catholic natural law theory was formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas over seven centuries ago. He identified one fundamental norm of natural law: do good and avoid evil. Doing good in this context is following reason’s lead to actualise human