PSY feedback

One way to think of 'natural law' is to say "if it's not done this way naturally, it's wrong."  But chemotherapy and radiation (used to treat cancer) are not NATURAL in this sense.  So, is it more natural to die from cancer, or to use human-developed technologies to cure it? 

Writer 1

Natural seems to be a very simplified way of making choices.  If it is not done naturally its wrong, no grey area.  Unfortunately the world is not so simple.  Grey areas exist everywhere even our law makers and those chosen to uphold them make exceptions to the law.  Law is ever changing.  What is considered law today can be amended tomorrow.  In the same way, what is natural today may not be so tomorrow.  Evolution is constant.       Question of today is it more natural to die from cancer or live using human ingenuity.  I say that dying refusing something unnatural sure shows your conviction I wont believe it makes it more natural or unnatural.  I guess first thing is what is done naturally. Free will is natural therefore dying refusing what you believe to be unnatural procedures is your choice and exhibits natural law.  I would argue that self preservation is one of the most natural processes we posses. It exist in all creatures from the beginning of time to the present.  It's that basic instinct of self preservation that would have me try anything to live.  Harmful things are done naturally for the greater good sometimes.  Your body does it.  A foreign substance that is in the stomach that is causing a reaction is regurgitated.  This is process also brings up harmful stomach acids from that could cause problems with digestive tracks.  Is it natural for a wolf to gnaw off its foot to escape a trap. No, not on the surface it isn't.  I would say that that the most natural things of all took over, the will to survive.

Writer2

According to the assigned readings this week, natural law is simply focused on establishing "natural aims as morally good". This theory initially appears to be much more beneficial and "balanced" than hedonism and rationalism due to it incorporating "several natural values rather than just one". What is wrong with striving for good health or higher learning throughout the course of one's life? Nothing, however there is always a negative that results from a positive. The negative side to the natural law theory is greatly displayed in instances in which individuals resort to modern day medicine to overcome and or battle diseases such as cancer or HIV. The natural law does not approve of anything that differs from the natural course of life, such as dying from cancer or diabetes. With that being said the controversy begins. Why would someone want to lose their life at the age of thirty if they can use modern medicine or technology to help them live well into there seventies or older? In my opinion it is silly to say the least. I feel that the theory of natural law is out dated. What I mean by this is that in the time that this theory was created, it was common for people to pass away at younger ages and people accepted this because they did not have the tools and technological capabilities in which we are blessed with today. Thus, in today's society it is more "natural" in a sense to cure one's disease rather then letting them die due to it. We are in a era of major medical advancement which has changed the way we look at life. For example, one hundred years ago no one would have fathomed the possibility of performing a heart transplant or creating robotic limbs, but it is a common practice today. It is natural for humans to look for ways to live a better. healthier, long life that brings fulfillment and joy. How can one be wrong for trying to get the most out of life? Work Cited: (Burnor, R., & Raley, Y. (2011). Ethical choices: An introduction to moral philosophy with cases (pp. 189-191). New York: Oxford University Press).