Laws:a certain code or rule people must live by.

Nature:something that is not man-made

Human:relating to or characteristic of humankind

Societies:the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

All of this was researched on Google.

Exploring: to traverse or range over for the purpose of discovering

Laws: A set of rules

Nature: the phenomena of the physical world collectively ,including plants ,animals , the landscape , and other features and products of earth ,as supposed to humans or human creations.

Impact: have an affect on , make a difference to.

Human societies: A group of people who share a common lifestyle.

Exploring: To travel or range over.

Law:A binding custom or practice of a community.

Nature: Nature is all the animals, plants and other things around the world 🌎.

Human: Bats have a more advanced to see in the dark.

Societies: Group of people living together.

LAWS: A SET OF RULES.

NATURE: ANIMAL, PLANTS AND OTHER THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAT ARE NOT MADE BY PEOPLE.

IMPACT: THE ACTION OF ONE OBJECT COMING.

HUMAN: PERSON WHO HAS LIFE IN IT.

SOCIETY: PLACE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE TOGETHER.

basic laws of physics :

In the first law, an object will not n the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. In the second law, the force on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. In the third law, when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction

ANS: Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness. Natural law is evident in and shapes many of our laws, business policies, and human rights agendas. However, unlike these systems, its rules do not change and are inherently assigned to everyone.

Source: Investopedia

ANS: Rules of society are the formal rules or norms that society makes for itself. -Laws of Nature is a natural Instinct of human beings or other animals due to native character or condition. -Human beings are not taught natural law per se,but rather we explore it by consistently making choices for good instead of evil.

Source: Vedanta.com

Ans: Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness. Natural law is evident in and shapes many of our laws, business policies, and human rights agendas. However, unlike these systems, its rules do not change and are inherently assigned to everyone.

2.what are the parallels and distinction between the laws of man and the laws of nature in governing human behaviour and societal order

Ans:The laws of Nature are very different from the laws of man. While the laws of man seek to order and control individual and social behavior so as to make communal life less risky, the laws of Nature are deduced from long-term observation of repeatable patterns and trends

3.in what ways did the laws of human nature intersect with the laws of nature and how do they influence individual and Collective Behavior

The theory of natural law believes that our civil laws should be based on morality, ethics, and what is inherently correct. This is in contrast to what is called "positive law" or "human law," which is defined by statute and common law and may or may not reflect the natural law.

Nature, on the other hand, shows ordered patterns at all scales: trees branch, and so do rivers, bodies, and arteries; tides and planetary orbits are periodic, day follows night, the seasons alternate, the moon has phases. The display of order in Nature allowed for a methodic counting and organizing as a means to gain some level of control over what was otherwise distant and unapproachable, the marching patterns of a world moving in ways beyond human reach.

Ans: The natural law approach to solving ethical dilemmas begins with the basic belief that everyone has the right to live their life. From there, natural law theorists draw a line between an innocent life and the life of an 'unjust aggressor.

ANS: In Western tradition, it was anticipated by the pre-Socratics, for example, in their search for principles that governed the cosmos and human beings. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,^[5] and was referred to in ancient Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to it are also to be found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and were later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. The School of Salamanca made notable contributions during the Renaissance.

Source: Wikipedia

The laws of Nature are very different from the laws of man. While the laws of man seek to order and control individual and social behavior so as to make communal life less risky, the laws of Nature are deduced from long-term observation of repeatable patterns and trends. While the laws of man may vary from culture to culture, based as they are on moral values that lack universal standards, the laws of Nature aim at universality, at uncovering behaviors that are true — in the sense of being verifiable — across time and space. Thus, while certain cultural trends that are accepted in one group may seem barbaric to others (such as female circumcision), stars across the Universe have been burning according to the same rules since they've first appeared some 200 million years after the Big Bang. Likewise, while in some countries the death penalty is abhorrent and in others it is exercised with almost fanatical zest, atoms and molecules across trillions of planets and moons in this and other galaxies combine and recombine in chemical reactions that follow patterns of order based on well-defined laws of conservation and of attraction and repulsion.

Thinker

In summary, natural law theorists draw upon reason, observation, historical analysis, and ethical reflection to develop and articulate their ideas about universal moral principles. These methods allow them to explore the relationship between natural law and positive law, as well as the ethical foundations of human conduct. 🌿📜🌎

Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness. Natural law is evident in and shapes many of our laws, business policies, and human rights agendas. However, unlike these systems, its rules do not change and are inherently assigned to everyone.

what are the parallels and distinctions between the laws of man and the laws of nature in governing human behavior and society called order

Behaviorism stresses that people are the way that they are because of their environment. Hence, the phrase, 'a product of the environment. ' The humanistic approach believes people are the way that they are because they want the good to be showing in everyone and everything

Ans:Natural law is a theory of ethics that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. It states that there are universal moral standards that are seen across time periods and societies because these .standards form the basis of a just society.

There have been several disagreements over the meaning of natural law and its relation to positive law. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people’s thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. However, he drew his examples of natural law primarily from his observation of the Greeks in their city-states, who subordinated women to men, slaves to citizens, and “barbarians” to Hellenes. In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind. Roman jurists paid lip service to this notion, which was reflected in the writings of St. Paul (c. 10–67 CE), who described a law “written in the hearts” of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14–15).

Ans: The natural law approach to solving ethical dilemmas begins with the basic belief that everyone has the right to live their life. From there, natural law theorists draw a line between an innocent life and the life of an 'unjust aggressor.

Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness. Natural law is evident in and shapes many of our laws, business policies, and human rights agendas. However, unlike these systems, its rules do not change and are inherently assigned to everyone.

what are the parallels and distinctions between the laws of man and the laws of nature in governing human behavior and society called order

Behaviorism stresses that people are the way that they are because of their environment. Hence, the phrase, 'a product of the environment. ' The humanistic approach believes people are the way that they are because they want the good to be showing in everyone and everything

Ans:natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

Ans:Natural law is a theory of ethics that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. It states that there are universal moral standards that are seen across time periods and societies because these standards form the basis of a just society.

Source: Investopedia

Ans: The natural law approach to solving ethical dilemmas begins with the basic belief that everyone has the right to live their life. From there, natural law theorists draw a line between an innocent life and the life of an 'unjust aggressor

First published Mon Feb 5, 2007; substantive revision Wed Jun 3, 2020

This entry considers natural law theories only as theories of law. That is not to say that legal theory can be adequately identified and pursued independently of moral and political theory. Nor is it to deny that there are worthwhile natural law theories much more concerned with foundational issues in ethics and political theory than with law or legal theory. A sample of such wider and more foundational theories is the entry Aquinas’ moral, political, and legal philosophy. In the present entry, “natural law theory” is to be taken as shorthand for natural law theories just insofar as they bear on law and are theories of or about it. This focus has the important incidental effect that many historically important differences between natural law theorists can be omitted, differences which pertain more to the foundations of normativity than to the nature and functions (“the concept”) of positive law.

Legal theorists who present or understand their theories as “positivist”, or as instances of “legal positivism”, take their theories to be opposed to, or at least clearly distinct from, natural law theory. Natural law theorists, on the other hand, did not conceive their theories in opposition to, or even as distinct from, legal positivism (contra Soper 1992 at 2395). The term “positive law” was put into wide philosophical circulation first by Aquinas, and natural law theories of his kind share, or at least make no effort to deny, many or virtually all “positivist” theses—except of course the bare thesis that natural law theories are mistaken, or the thesis that a norm is the content of an act of will. Natural law theory accepts that law can be considered and spoken of both as a sheer social fact of power and practice, and as a set of reasons for action that can be and often are sound as reasons and therefore normative for reasonable people addressed by them. This dual character of positive law is presupposed by the well-known slogan “Unjust laws are not laws.” Properly understood, that slogan indicates why—unless based upon some skeptical denial that there are any sound reasons for action (a denial which can be set aside because defending it is self-refuting)—positivist opposition to natural law theories is pointless, that is redundant: what positivists characteristically see as realities to be affirmed are already affirmed by natural law theory, and what they characteristically see as illusions to be dispelled are no part of natural law theory. But because legal theories conceived of by their authors as positivist are, by and large, dominant in the milieux of those likely to be reading this entry, it seems appropriate to refer to those theories along the way, in the hope of overcoming misunderstandings that (while stimulating certain clarifications and improvements of natural law theorizing) have generated some needless debate.

The point made in the preceding paragraph is made in another way by Orrego (Orrego 2007). When the accounts of adjudication and judicial reasoning proposed by contemporary mainstream legal theories are added to those theories’ accounts of (the concept of) law, it becomes clear that, at the level of propositions (as distinct from names, words and formulations), those theories share (though not always without self-contradiction) the principal theses about law which are proposed by classic natural law theorists such as Aquinas: (i) that law establishes reasons for action, (ii) that its rules can and presumptively (defeasibly) do create moral obligations that did not as such exist prior to the positing of the rules, (iii) that that kind of legal-moral obligation is defeated by a posited rule’s serious immorality (injustice), and (iv) that judicial and other paradigmatically legal deliberation, reasoning and judgment includes, concurrently, both natural (moral) law and (purely) positive law. Orrego’s point seems to be confirmed by, e.g., the entry on legal positivism (Green and Adams 2019). Contemporary “positivist” theories are, it seems, natural law theories, distinguished from the main body of natural law theory (a) by their denial that the theory of law (as distinct from the theory or theories of adjudication, judicial duty, citizens’ allegiance, etc.) necessarily or most appropriately tackles the related matters just listed, and accordingly (b) by the incompleteness of their theories of law, that is, the absence from them (and usually, though not always, from their accounts of those related matters) of systematic critical attention to the foundations of the moral and other normative claims that they make or presuppose.

In short: a natural law theory of (the nature of) law seeks both to give an account of the facticity of law and to answer questions that remain central to understanding law. As listed by Green 2019 (having observed that “No legal philosopher can be only a legal positivist”), these further questions (which “legal positivism does not aspire to answer”) are: What kinds of things could possibly count as the merits of law? What role should law play in adjudication? What claim has law on our obedience? What laws should we have? And should we have law at all? All these questions, though organized and articulated a little differently, are under consideration in the present entry.

Ans:natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

Ans: While some argue that reason and natural law are essential in creating a harmonious society, others believe that they may actually be hindering progress. Despite these differing views, there is a growing consensus that both reason and natural law can play a crucial role in shaping our world for the better.

Source: FasterCapital

Ans:natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

The search for the ultimate philosophical foundation of law having universal application has led to different ideas and theories from the ancient periods to the modern times.  The concern, primarily, has been how to subject positive law to higher and overriding principles of natural law which are universal and immutable in character.  In the process different versions of natural law have emerged.  The conceptions of natural law of the early Greek philosophers are essentially metaphysical in character.  They attempted to establish inextricable nexus between natural law and other elements that constitute the cosmos.  The Romans, on their part, made natural rights into natural law and sought to discover the contents of natural law.  In the middle Ages law was largely expressed in terms of theological principles and beliefs; the seventeen and eighteen centuries put forward rational – theological or rational – ethical natural law and at the end of the eighteen century Kent replaced the rational foundation by once again a metaphysical natural law. In the contemporary times John Finnis and Lon Fuller spearheaded a completely secular approach to natural law.

This paper undertakes an overview of the various ideas from the ancient to the contemporary that have shaped natural law. More importantly, it evaluates the utility and significance of natural law. It also asseses its impact on contemporary legal systems. It finally considers the prospect of its relevance in the future.

Ans: Natural Law is a philosophical theory that states that human beings have certain universally accepted rights, moral values, and responsibilities that are inherent in human nature.

Natural Law Theory is based on the idea that these laws are a universal moral code and are not based on any culture or customs. It is a fundamental principle that defines the way society acts naturally and governs behavior and reasoning

ANSNatural Law is a philosophical theory. It involves the idea that rights, values, and responsibilities are inherent in human nature.

• It doesn’t require political order or legislature and serves as a basis for morality and justice throughout human history.

• Natural Law contrasts with both Positive Law and Human Rights.

  SOURCE: CFI

In many countries natural rights provide fundamental foundations of legal systems. Natural Laws are evident in the laws of the nation and its policies and are also evident in their interactions with its people

Its includes the genes we were born and other hereditary factors that can impacthow our personality is formed.

2. What are the parallels and dist?

Parallels are lines of latitude that circle the earth horizontally. They run east and west.

Ans: We have learnt a lot of new things about the nature and also went in a field trip where we saw toxic trees, medicinal trees and a lot more.We have researched about thunder and erosion.We made interviews on people and on gravity,motion.

2.What was the main problem?

The main problem was researching about the laws of nature,and also the Internet.

3.How did you like your central idea?

I liked my central because it quite related with our lines of inquiry.

4.What didn't you like?

I did not like when we had to do extra work and we were running out of time!

5.What are your suggestions?

I think we have to have more time and better Internet.

I learned about how natural laws affect and impact on human societies.

2:what was the main problem? The main problem was to research and make power point presentaions

3: How did you like your central idea?

It was amazing an interesting to research on it

4 What didn't you like? When we had to do present different topics in different classes.

5 What are your suggestions My suggestion is that it would be better if we had general exhibition instead of online exhibition.

I almost know all the laws like law of polarity law of gravity and so on.The thing we most learn is motion and the three laws of nature.My central Idea is exploring the laws of nature and their impact on the human societies it has many information aout the three laws of nature

what I learned about LOI:

I almost know all like law of polarity, law of motion and laws of gravity

We Learned about the laws of nature

2: what was the main problem?

The main problem was that we did not change the laws of nature influence the development and evaluation of human societies.

3:how did you like your central idea

I like my central idea because it has the relationship between the laws of nature.

4:what didn't you like

I tried to post in padlet but it was hard .

5:What are your suggestions

My suggestion to know about exhibition

the main problem is that we wanted to find the relationship between the laws of nature and the human societies

i love the fild trip we learn more about tree and nature

nothing everything was good

we can action and plant trees

I chose curiosity because we didn’t know the laws of nature but after some research we knew what it is.I chose Respect because nature needs to be respected .

We have a strong desire to learn more about nature.

Respect:

If we do not respect the laws of nature we will break the equilibrium of the laws of nature.

curiosity because : in the central idea they said exploring the laws of nature

RESPECT because we are learning to respect the laws of nature and

Nature itself

RESPECT we chose respect because we are learning to respect the laws of nature and Nature itself

we read books on physics

we have consulted google

we read books on physics

we have to know what is happening in the world because maybe their is a virus but you dont know so you may die because you didnt know and if you do not know you will think all the natural disasters is miracles

We read books on physics