Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke believe in natural law theory.  Accordingly, they think we can objectively determine what the good life is, and that the government, through laws, ought to play a role in facilitating the good life.  What are the key beliefs of natural law theory?  What about this viewpoint do you find true or untrue?  What are some potential dangers of this approach?

 

What are the key beliefs of natural law theory

the key beliefs of Natural law theory are;

• it is believed that the natural law is given by God, according to Aquinas is that if we focus on God's role as the care giver of the natural law, then it is just as among he other theories as the natural law and divine providence
• it is also believed that the natural laws has powers over human beings; Aquinas says the natural law as human beings role as recipients , the natural law has features of rationality, through these features or principles, human beings are judged as reasonable or unreasonable hence the power it holds over humans
• it is naturally known by human beings; having discussed the two main features oof Aquinas theory, it is without doubt that the natural law is well known by the human beings

Step-by-step explanation

What about this viewpoint do you find true or untrue?

the natural law holds that good is prior to the right, it places that there are things that are naturally good and universally good too. this is not possible because there cannot be a universal natural good. there are different people with different beliefs and taste and preference, how can there be naturally universal goods. Hobble answers this by using the subjectivist theory of good and that if humans are rightfully and biologically guided all function the same hence desire the self preservation concept. Aristotle rejects the subjectivism theory about the goodness of the law. he indicates that if something is good it is not because of desire but that is a completion of being a human being. considering both answers i don't believe in the natural law of something good has to be right. we are different human beings with different desires what is good to one human being isn't good to the other hence it nullifies the law.

What are some potential dangers of this approach?

how do you relate or explain the principle of morality as correct.

how do you explain the connections between right and good, it brings the question of of the idea of the principle of moral tightness does not constitute a good response of what is good