Question

According to natural law theory, actions are right just because they are natural and wrong just because they are unnatural. The theory has a number of attractions. By grounding morality in human nature, the theory promises to explain both how morality could be objective and why morality applies only to human beings. The theory could also help us to understand the origins of morality and how we can come to have moral knowledge. If, through science, we come to understand our nature and its origin, then according to natural law theory, we will know everything we need to know about morality. If natural law theory is to be plausible, its defenders must specify exactly what sense of “human nature” is supposed to be morally relevant. On one understanding, human nature consists of whatever is innately human. Others take human nature to be whatever all or most humans have in common. Still others understand human nature to consist of whatever we were “designed” by nature to do. The problem for natural law theory is that none of these understandings of human nature seems to provide a sufficient basis for morality. Whether an action or character trait is morally good does not seem to depend on whether it is innate or acquired. The percentage of people who have a given trait does not seem particularly morally relevant, either—even if almost everyone were cruel, this would still not make cruelty morally admirable. Furthermore, on either of the two most common ways of understanding natural purposes, whether an action enables us to fulfill a natural purpose doesn’t seem to tell us whether that act is morally permissible or not. The term human nature can be understood in many ways. Even if we settle on one definition of human nature, however, it is far from obvious that everything natural is morally good, or vice versa. Given that natural laws merely tell us how things will behave whereas the function of moral laws is to tell us how we should behave, it should come as no surprise that nature does not tell us everything we’d like to know about morality.

"Suppose that 'human nature' consists of the set of innate characteristics that all (or most) humans share. Understood in this way, what does human nature tell us about morality? Is it always immoral to behave contrary to human nature?" Write 200 words.

Answer 1

Below is an absolutely accurate answer .

Human nature tell is following about morality-

Humans have a moral experience considering that their natural cosmetics decides the nearness of three vital situations for moral conduct:

(I) the potential to foresee the consequences of one's own behavior

(ii) the ability to make esteem decisions; and

(iii) the ability to pick out between optional approaches.

The difficulty for regular law speculation is that none of these understandings of human intuition appears to offer an ok premise to ethical fine.

Given that ordinary legal guidelines sincerely reveal to us how things will act while the potential of good legal guidelines is to disclose to us how we should deliver on, it should not shock each person that nature does not display to us all that we'd opt for to think about ethical great.

-No it not mandatory or always immoral to behave contrary to human nature-

Regardless of whether we pick out one meaning of human instinct, in any case, it is a long manner from obvious that everything feature is ethically acceptable, or the other way around.

In the occasion that, through science, we come to realize our tendency and its birthplace, at that point as indicated by commonplace regulation hypothesis, we will realize it all we need to consider ethical exceptional.

By organising profound satisfactory in human instinct, the hypothesis vows to clarify both how ethical fine may be intention and why profound pleasant applies just to people.