Explain the strengths of natural law Natural law is a deontological argument and is an absolutist theory. It holds the belief that there is a innate law within us and gives humans a purpose in life - to be in union with God. Thomas Aquinas believe that all humans have a God given law that has the potential to be channeled by anyone. It is based on the fact there are real and apparent goods , which meaner that although you may think your doing the right thing , you may Just be doing an apparent good.
Natural law provides a system in which anyone can achieve goodness and genuine happiness and fulfillment. There is the argument that different people find that different things make them happy , but Natural law would explain that this 'happiness' is merely apparent, and not real. When bringing up children it is vital to have definite writes and wrongs , and a child's sense of reason isn't fully developed. Natural law allows for a clear-cut approach to morality and establishes common rules which promotes a good upbringing to children. Children's sense of write or wrong develops whilst they grow and if they a brought up knowing that there is an absolute law that they must learn to obey then they will probably grow up to have a very throng moral code. Natural law is a common sense. In everyday life humans develop the idea of common sense, but no-one really knows what it is; Natural law explains this. It is written into us and is unchanging. Some could argue that in fact common sense has changed through generations due to different developments - The common sense of a cave man could be considered different to the common sense of humans now.
However Thomas Aquinas would reply that the logic would still be the same, the way we work things out has always been the same as it is written into every human mind. This meaner that even people who don't believe in a Christian God can still grasp the concept of innate law because all humans will know that they have this. A baby doesn't know right or wrong;This doesn't mean that they are doing wrong, and when a child does something bad , it doesn't necessarily mean that it is evil. This is because you learn how to act through what you learn everyday. He law is written into your heart' and you discover through wisdom and experience. When you eventually die , you will have the knowledge of right and wrong because you have experience life and so will be reunited with God. Is-ought fallacy (Home) - it isn't right to look at apparent view on life. Just because you have it within you to care doesn't mean that you ought. For example few debate that one ought to run quickly if one's goal is to win a race but tougher question may be whether one 'morally ought' to want to win a race in the first place.
Followers of natural law believe that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about our physical world. Many modern followers of natural law wouldn't see a difference in deriving 'ought' from 'is', and believe that it can be done whenever we analyses goal-directed behavior. They suggest 'In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C'. So to Thomas Aquinas 'Oughtn't exist, then, in light of the existence of goals. Polling can't 1 b) To what extent could a follower of natural law address the issues raised by abortion?
In almost all cases a follower of natural law would argue against abortions as it goes against two of the primary precepts which are the innate laws give to us that determine whether an act is wrong or right. Abortion goes against the precept of reproduction and defending the innocent. Natural law says that one of the primary precepts, a key purpose of human life, is reproduction. The Theory of Evolution says that the instinct to reproduce explains why our genes have survived. So this meaner that abortion goes against the nature of things and would be considered morally wrong.
Another primary precept is defending the innocent. And Christians believe that a baby is a baby as soon as the cells start multiplying. This meaner that 'killing it would be killing the innocent and so a follower of natural law would have to argue against the abortion. However this also raises the issue to non Christians of When is a baby a baby? The I-J law states that anyone can have an abortion until twenty two weeks. At 12 weeks the fetus has a fully working central nervous system (feels pain) and can respond to music (aware of outside world).
However women can go for months without realizing they're pregnant. If a woman became pregnant and was told that she had a cancer in her womb then a follower of natural law would allow for an abortion because it could be argued to be the most loving thing to do. This would be the only exception because even if the woman would die in having the baby, in natural law , even if a bad act is done knowing that there will be good outcome , it is still wrong because you must always do the right thing.