Natural Law Theory Vs Utilitarianism

There are many ethical theories used to decide which actions are morally right or wrong. Philosophers create theories in which they describe imperatives or rules to help people decide how to conduct themselves to be their moral best. Some are very basic, while some are more complex. Philosophers may agree with the entire theory or may pick them apart and only follow pieces as they see fit. Two of these theories are the Natural Law Theory and Utilitarianism, which vary in how much they regulate behavior.

Natural Law theory is one that breaks actions into two categories, moral and immoral behaviors. As humans we have innate, basic drives and instincts. These include hunger, social, sleep, and sex drives. Morally good actions are those that
It states that morally good actions are those that maximize happiness and the best action is one that creates the most overall net happiness. To produce the most net happiness, you must first identify what outcomes are intrinsically good such as happiness and which are intrinsically bad such as pain, anguish, and betrayal of innocence. This also means that good and bad actions must be weighed based on their value, and then based on their value, you can then pick the best actions to maximize happiness. However, bad actions may still be applied as long as their is a benefit that outweighs the consequences. This is known as
It passes over who deserves the good action and who “deserves” the bad. A modern example of Utilitarianism is the North Dakota Pipeline at Standing Rock. If the pipeline does the entire country good even if it displaces the homes of thousands of people or destroys specific species vegetation, then is one choice more just than the other. Who is decide which is more valuable and who is powerful enough to make that decision for everyone? Based on who is being asked to make that decision, their answers will be vastly different. A businessman will pick to place the pipe because of the revenue it generates, while a North Dakota resident will be opposed since it is their home’s land. To different people, the value of that land can be greatly different.
I also do not agree with this theory as I feel it is lacking to much. It is way too simple to be able to guide a person in the right direction, as it leaves too much up to interpretation. The expression, “ one person’s trash, is another man’s treasure” may be used to describe this theory. Some people are able to throw pennies aside because they are useless, while others scrape them together to get by. Each human is entitled to value their items or experiences differently. One person should not have the power to decide which action is fair or just enough to produce the maximum net