Aristotle's Authorship Of Magna Moralia

Aristotle spent very little time in his interest to differentiate and distinguish between both natural and traditional justice. On the other hand, the Greeks specialized in their own view. They were very much in favor of natural law. Nature was the basic approach and course that the Romans took in their lives. He superficially stated that laws that do not fit the mind are invalid.
On the other hand, the theory of Aquinas is one of the theories that received much attention and controversy in particular. It states that a law that does not conform to divine law is not legally considered in any way.
It is always called unfair and unfair law, (unfair law is not legal).
However, the old and modern scholars assert that Aquinas in itself did not declare such a law at all, but only on St. Augustine. Plato, Aristotle, and
In other words, we find that there is a large category that states that the work consists of a student either by Aristotle or by the same person as Magna Moralia.
There are also many people who consider Aristotle to be true writers.
But the basic meaning of the term "natural law" as used in Magna Muralia differs fundamentally from that in Nikomashian ethics.
The dubious authorship of Magna Muralia may have been the reason for Aristotle's discussions on natural law centered on Nikomashian's morality, politics, and eloquence. This is a big mistake. Whether we can attribute Magna Moralia to Aristotle himself is, from a systematic point of view, of little significance. Did Socrates not know that Charmides was not important to determine who said certain words as to determine whether they were true or not?
The basic and proper meaning of the term natural law is what is normally traded in Magna Muralia, which is far from the Nicomasian ethic.
Perhaps the difference in the credibility of Magna Moralia is the main and main reason for Aristotle's dialogues per