I have trouble with the use of the term "natural law" as conveying how things ought to be. What is natural is not necessary "good" for humans, for other animals or even plants. A hurricane is natural. A tornado is natural. Disease is natural. Conflict between humans that results in injury or death to ourselves and others is natrural. Thus, the laws of nature are descriptive of "what is". When we ask "ought" questions, we are applying our moral sense of right and wrong to what we humans are in a position to influence.
Joseph writes: "The human species is characterised by reflecting on the nature of things. It is this that distinguishes it from all other species." Related to this is that we are the only species that has the capacity to contemplate the results of our actions before we act, to visualize the anticipated outcome and then decide on a course of action.
I have trouble with the use of the term "natural law" as conveying how things ought to be. What is natural is not necessary "good" for humans, for other animals or even plants. A hurricane is natural. A tornado is natural. Disease is natural. Conflict between humans that results in injury or death to ourselves and others is natrural. Thus, the laws of nature are descriptive of "what is". When we ask "ought" questions, we are applying our moral sense of right and wrong to what we humans are in a position to influence.
Joseph writes: "The human species is characterised by reflecting on the nature of things. It is this that distinguishes it from all other species." Related to this is that we are the only species that has the capacity to contemplate the results of our actions before we act, to visualize the anticipated outcome and then decide on a course of action.