Moral realism is described as the belief that morale is not dictated by society's acceptance at a given point in history. It is actually the belief that good morals have an absolute right and wrong to them. This is the belief that in this universe they is a standard set for all and even when we, as humans, fall short, the standard is still there. One person who believed this was the seventh-century thinker by the name of Richard Cumberland. He discussed these matters in his 1672 published work, De Legibus Naturae, or The Laws of Nature. In the work the law of nature is defined as "propositions of unchangeable Truth, which direct our voluntary Actions about choosing Good and Evil; and impose an Obligation to external actins even without civil Laws, and laying aside all Considerations of those compacts which constitute civil government." (IEP, 2001) In layman's terms the law of nature, as far as morals go, is not relative or subject to change with society because we possess an undeniable instinct that tells us when we are doing something evil, or immoral, regardless to whether there is a civil law about it or not. An example of this would be stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry family. Even though you know that you a doing "evil" to help your family live, you know you are doing wrong, even if it's for a good cause. The fact that you feel this attack of conscience, even if it's just for a split second, proves that the law of nature that says stealing is an evil, and the knowledge to discern between good and evil is the same in everyone. Therefore, it is not relative.
             In this work he, in detail discusses "eternal and immutable principles regulative of voluntary action." (Ferm, 1956) Cumberland believes that morals are based on the "evidence of sense and experience." (Edwards, 1967) In other words, "Experience reveals to us that the parts of a whole secure thei
             ...