Fiona Neal

Professor Simone
PHIL 101
12 December 2023

Natural Law Theory

What is natural law theory? Be sure to summarize all of its aspects (e.g. is it
consequentialist or non-consequentialist? Does intention matter?) According to natural law
theory, what would be correct moral action for social issues involving gender roles/conduct (this
could involve a discussion of how each gender “should” behave, homosexuality, transgender
issues, etc.)? Next, evaluate your answer according to both the naturalistic fallacy and the
appeal to nature fallacy. Considering your answers, do you agree or disagree with natural law
theory in matters concerning gender roles/conduct (this would be your thesis statement)? Be
sure to consider a counter-argument.

Natural law theory is a philosophical perspective which asserts the existence of moral
order derived from both nature and reason. Natural law states that moral principles are inherent
in the nature of human beings and the world, and that these principles can be discovered
through reflection. Central to natural law theory is the idea that there are certain moral norms
that govern human conduct and can be understood by examining the natural order of things.
This theory typically focuses on the inherent nature of actions rather than its consequences. It
holds that some acts are inherently right or wrong based on their conformity to natural order.
Natural law theorists emphasize the role of reason in discerning moral principles. It can be
debated that through rational reflection, individuals can identify the inherent moral order that
governs human behavior. Intention is a crucial element in natural law theory. The moral quality
of an action is not solely determined by its consequences but also influenced by the intention
behind the action. A morally good intention can, to some extent, mitigate the wrongness of an
action. Applying natural law theory to social issues involving gender roles and conduct involves
considering what aligns with the perceived natural order. Traditional interpretations often
emphasize distinct roles for men and women, suggesting that adhering to these roles
corresponds with the natural law. However, it's crucial to note that interpretations of natural law
can vary, and modern perspectives may challenge traditional gender norms. In matters related
to gender roles, conduct, and issues like homosexuality and transgender identity, natural law
theory might suggest that behaviors aligning with what is perceived as the natural order are
morally correct. For instance, adherents might argue that heterosexual relationships conform to
the natural purpose of human sexuality, reflecting the potential for procreation.
The naturalistic fallacy occurs when one derives an "ought" from an "is," assuming that
because something is a certain way, it should be that way. In the context of natural law theory,
critics argue that just because certain behaviors or roles are deemed "natural" doesn't
necessarily make them morally right. This fallacy challenges the transition from descriptive
claims about the natural order to prescriptive moral judgments. The appeal to nature fallacy
asserts that just because something is natural, it is good or morally right. Critics of natural law
theory argue that assuming the morality of an action based on its alignment with perceived
natural order is an oversimplification. This fallacy challenges the notion that what is considered
natural is inherently moral.
In evaluating natural law theory concerning gender roles and conduct, considering the
fallacies provides a nuanced perspective. While natural law theory emphasizes reason and the
inherent order of nature, the naturalistic and appeal to nature fallacies caution against assuming
a direct link between what is natural and what is morally right.
A counter-argument may contend that natural law theory's reliance on reason and nature
is insufficient for addressing the complexities of human behavior and societal norms. Critics may
argue that the theory's historical association with traditional gender norms perpetuates
stereotypes and excludes the diverse ways individuals may express their identities.
In conclusion, natural law theory, rooted in reason and the perceived natural order of
humans, offers a framework for understanding moral principles. When applied to social issues
like gender roles and conduct, it suggests conformity to the perceived natural order as morally
correct. However, caution is warranted due to potential pitfalls such as the naturalistic and
appeal to nature fallacies. Considering the counter-argument highlights the ongoing debate
surrounding the applicability of natural law theory to contemporary societal challenges. In
matters concerning gender roles and conduct, a balanced approach that acknowledges the
complexity of human experiences may be necessary, transcending strict adherence to traditional
interpretations of natural law.