In this paper, I plan to discuss what can account for moral goodness according to the Natural Law Theory, and the modern philosopher Immanuel Kant. Each has different views on how to judge whether a person is morally good. Each has its own standards of measurement, which will be explained throughout this paper. I will also discuss objections that can be made against the two theories. I will base this on an article I once read that gives the situation of a violinist that is dying and I had been kidnapped in order to provide life support for him or he will die. I will assess as to whether my action, to keep myself plugged in and save this person's life, was rooted in moral goodness according to each of the two theories. I chose to include the hypothetical situation this article presents in my paper because after reading it, one can't help but think what they would do if put in that situation.
             The Natural Law Theory rests upon a certain view of what the world is like. In this view, the world has a rational order and values within its structure. Everything in nature has a purpose. These natural laws also explain how things ought to be. Things are said to be as they ought to when serving their natural purposes. There are also ramifications for human action. The Natural Law Theory states that as long as actions comply with what is natural for human beings, then these actions are moral. A normative claim about Natural Law Theory is that whatever is natural is the way things should be. Something is natural if it contributes to the flourishing of humans.
             Similar to the Natural Law Theory explaining morality Aristotle also has a theory that explains what it means to be moral. Aristotle says that the function of humans is an activity of the soul in accordance with reason. When this has happened we have achieved eudaimonia. Achieving eudaimonia, the supreme good, is the ultimate goal of humans. As humans we have duty, and we follow moral ...