Natural Law Vs Man Made Law Essay

In Julia Driver’s 2007 piece, “God and Human Nature”, theories are discussed in order to convey a better understanding of morality and how it is determined. The theory to be discussed is the “Divine Command Theory” and Driver discusses the role of God in assessing morality. The Divine Command Theory is an example of a system that is used to define what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Essentially, according to this theory, what is right and wrong is “completely a matter of God’s will” (Driver 2007, 23).

Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man

Morality are principles concerning the distinction of good and bad or right and wrong behavior, that influences behavior and worldly views. From different perspectives, morality can be can viewed as being of one 's own conviction, or a natural principle that we should succumb to by the “laws” of nature. Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche are two well known philosopher that twist morality into those groups of morals of being “taste” or “truth”. Aqunas sees morality as a truth that consist of things that contribute or disrupts the nature of things. While Nietzsche viewpoint is directed upon that morality is merely opinion and that “might makes right.”

Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?

Everything around us demonstrates us that there is higher law above our will. For instance if we observe a neam tree it has fruits, flowers, branches, twigs, leaves, but we cannot see

Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.

He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b).   This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control.   The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).

Human motivation for good deeds is a mixture of both philosophies; however, it is primarily out of fear and selfishness. ` Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is proof of the Puritan ideology of human wickedness. For example, the Puritans believed that “if God

In CS Lewis book, ‘The Abolition of Man’ is focused on the concept of Natural Law, a moral standard known to all human communities. Whereas the other book, ‘Mere Christianity – I, is focused on the universal human conception about right and wrong. In the first section of Mere Christianity, Lewis illustrates “Law of Nature” by which he defines one’s moral sense of what is right and what is wrong. He states that this law is same as the physical law, like gravitation except for the significant difference of human have the power of breaking this law of nature (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 5). Lewis mentions that in every culture, human say about doing one thing, but actually do something else.

Are we obligated to obey unjust laws? Laws are important because they are guidelines for a state. Without laws citizens would not know how to act and cause harm to others. Laws are aimed at common good and keep a society together and functioning.

The Differences The novel The Natural by Bernard Malamud displays a tragic story about a man with many flaws show extraordinary skills in baseball, with a depressing ending of disgrace. The movie, however, displays the story of a respectable guy dealing with a few unlucky happenings while also showing his natural talent in the sport of baseball. The movie and the book have some big differences include Iris, who she is and her relation with Roy, Roy’s aspects, and the ending. The two works have clear differences that arguably change the story totally.

Aquinas approaches natural evil in a different way, because he views it as less of a punishment and more of an opportunity for goodness; “many good things would be missed if God permitted no evil to exist” (Aquinas, 1917, 1A, 49, 1). Sometimes a seemingly evil event, such as an earthquake, inspires people around the world to come together and help the country in need; therefore, the evil created an opportunity for goodness and unity, which is essentially God’s ultimate plan. When viewing evil through Aquinas’ approach it is notable that God is almost praised for including evil in our world, because it allows humanity to distinguish a difference between good and bad; therefore, humanity has a greater chance of appreciating the goodness in the world. Because of this, God’s existence is not only justified, but evil is shown as an essential part in making the world a peaceful place, rather than the initial idea that evil is a problem for the

The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.

The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.

If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of