compare and contrast in a two page essay the ethical theories of relativism and natural law and explain which one is objectively more reasonable

Sure, here is a brief comparison and contrast of the ethical theories of relativism and natural law:

Relativism is an ethical theory that posits that moral principles are not universal, but rather, are culturally and individually defined. This means that what is considered morally right or wrong can vary from one culture to another, or even from one person to another within the same culture. Relativism rejects the idea of a single moral truth, arguing instead that morality is a construct of social, historical, and personal circumstances.

On the other hand, natural law theory asserts that there are universal moral principles inherent in human nature, and these principles can be discovered through reason. According to this theory, what is morally right or wrong is not dependent on cultural or individual perspectives, but rather, is determined by the natural order of the world. Natural law theory is often associated with the idea of objective moral truth.

Comparing the two, relativism and natural law theory present two fundamentally different views of morality. While relativism emphasizes the diversity and subjectivity of moral principles, natural law theory emphasizes their universality and objectivity.

Contrasting the two, the main difference lies in their approach to the concept of moral truth. Relativism rejects the idea of a single moral truth, arguing that morality is a construct of social, historical, and personal circumstances. Natural law theory, on the other hand, asserts that there is an objective moral truth that can be discovered through reason.

As for which theory is more reasonable, it largely depends on one's perspective. If one values cultural diversity and individual autonomy, then relativism may seem more reasonable. However, if one believes in the existence of universal moral principles, then natural law theory may seem more reasonable.

It's important to note that both theories have their strengths and weaknesses. Relativism can lead to moral relativism, where anything can be justified as long as it is accepted by a particular culture or individual. This can potentially lead to harmful practices being justified. On the other hand, natural law theory can lead to dogmatism, where certain moral principles are imposed universally, potentially disregarding cultural diversity and individual autonomy.

In conclusion, both relativism and natural law theory offer valuable insights into the nature of morality. However, they also present challenges that need to be addressed. Ultimately, the choice between the two theories depends on one's philosophical, cultural, and personal beliefs.