Back
to top
need help with the natural law Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
i need arguments on if the natural law is suitable for our society today
0
reply
Report
#2
Aquinas' primary precepts could have been deduced from an incorrect view of human nature.
It disapproves of homosexuality, but the range of sexual orientations in society cannot be ignored especially in a time of human rights and equality, therefore do we actually have a single, common human nature?
Freud said Aquinas ignored the fact that pleasure in sex is important for a couple's relationship
Grosch and Vardy said Aquinas ignored the fact that sexual activity is found in places other than the genitalia
Hope this helps, it's all I could think of off the top of my head
It disapproves of homosexuality, but the range of sexual orientations in society cannot be ignored especially in a time of human rights and equality, therefore do we actually have a single, common human nature?
Freud said Aquinas ignored the fact that pleasure in sex is important for a couple's relationship
Grosch and Vardy said Aquinas ignored the fact that sexual activity is found in places other than the genitalia
Hope this helps, it's all I could think of off the top of my head
0
reply
Report
#3
Arguing for or against Natural Law is really much like arguing for or against any other deontological theory of ethics. You can talk about the inflexibility of Natural Law and how it takes no account of circumstances which makes it impractical. You could mention about how Aquinas' Natural Law collapses if one doesn't believe in God which makes it a difficult system for all to abide by.
Arguments to support its use in modern society would tend to surround encouraging traditional principles which focus on a moral life. Because the principles are deontological, they should be unmistakable and clear for all to follow. It's not like with a teleological theory like Utilitarianism where the principles are relativistic and could be applied or interpreted in various different ways.
Arguments to support its use in modern society would tend to surround encouraging traditional principles which focus on a moral life. Because the principles are deontological, they should be unmistakable and clear for all to follow. It's not like with a teleological theory like Utilitarianism where the principles are relativistic and could be applied or interpreted in various different ways.
0
reply
(Original post by emma7645)
Aquinas' primary precepts could have been deduced from an incorrect view of human nature.
It disapproves of homosexuality, but the range of sexual orientations in society cannot be ignored especially in a time of human rights and equality, therefore do we actually have a single, common human nature?
Freud said Aquinas ignored the fact that pleasure in sex is important for a couple's relationship
Grosch and Vardy said Aquinas ignored the fact that sexual activity is found in places other than the genitalia
Hope this helps, it's all I could think of off the top of my head
Aquinas' primary precepts could have been deduced from an incorrect view of human nature.
It disapproves of homosexuality, but the range of sexual orientations in society cannot be ignored especially in a time of human rights and equality, therefore do we actually have a single, common human nature?
Freud said Aquinas ignored the fact that pleasure in sex is important for a couple's relationship
Grosch and Vardy said Aquinas ignored the fact that sexual activity is found in places other than the genitalia
Hope this helps, it's all I could think of off the top of my head
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
