Reference no: EM133413640

Questions:

1) How would a Natural Law Theorist (NLTist) finish the following sentences?:

An action is right/moral/good if?

An action is wrong/immoral/bad if...

2) According to Natural Law Theory (NLT), how does on go about making a decision in a particular moral situation? That is, how does one apply the general definition of good/bad from (1) to particular moral situations? It might help to think about a hypothetical situation -- one in which you're trying to make a moral decision. Then think about how NLT would tell you to proceed in making the decision.

3) Why, according to NLT, should one act morally? That is, what motivation does one have, if he/she believes in this theory, to be a good person and do the right thing?

4) What arguments are there in defense of NLT? That is, why advocates of each theory believe that it's true? Or, to put it another way, what reasons might someone who believes in this theory give others, so that they might be convinced to believe it?

5)Why, according to NLT, should one act morally? That is, what motivation does one have, if he/she believes in this theory, to be a good person and do the right thing?

6) What arguments are there in defense of NLT? That is, why do advocates of each theory believe that it's true? Or, to put it another way, what reasons might someone who believes in this theory give others, so that they might be convinced to believe it?

7) What criticisms are there of Natural Law Theory (NLT)? There are a number of criticisms of this theory addressed by Rachel. One important one has to do with a clash between NLT and modern science and another has to do wtih NLT confusing "is" and "ought".

8) How do DCT and NLT compare? They're both, after all, religious theories of morality and are similar in some ways. But they're quite different in other ways.

9) Rachels concludes that morality is not dependent upon religion. That means that one can be a moral person even in the absence of religious belief and instruction. Do you agree or disagree? Why? [Note that Rachels is not saying that morality is inconsistent with religion. He thinks it's perfectly consistent to be religious and moral. He just doesn't believe that one MUST be religious in order to be moral.]

10) Rachels argues that even informal connections between morality and religion are often suspect (in the last section of Chapter 4). Why does he think so?

11) Why does Rachels claim that religious prohibitions on abortion aren't as clearcut as many assum