Natural Law and Intrinsic Good and Evil: Analysis and Comparison of Constituents and Level of Efficacy

In the field of ethics, the theories of natural law and the inherent good and evil are sometimes considered the same. The reason is that the theory of natural law has not been clearly defined and no attempt has been made to identify he differences between the two theories. According to the findings of the present study, there are six key differences between the two: (1) In the theory of natural law, contrary to the theory of intrinsic good and evil, recognition of values is a kind of reminder; (2) in the theory of natural law, ethics is based on human capacity, intrinsic needs and orientations; (3) In the theory of natural law, the origin of the propositions of practical reason goes back to fundamental goodness which is rooted in the natural needs and desires; (4) These two theories are formulated in two completely different intellectual traditions, one in the Aristotelian ethics and the other in the Islamic ideological theology; (5) The theory of natural law has more successful applications; (6) The interpretation of the theory of natural law is different from that of the theory of intrinsic good and evil. Relying on intrinsic goodness, the theory of intrinsic good and evil, seeks moral truths among facts outside human existence, such as the essence of action based on rational arguments, while the theory of natural law lays the foundation of moral laws in natural capacities of human existence. Adopting an analytical-descriptive method, the present paper tries to explain the differences between these two theories.