The word "good" needs to be defined in some specific context. That is, whenever it is used, it is essential to ask: "Good - to whom and for what?"
So, to whom is natural law good? It is good to human beings, because by following the natural law, human beings can achieve the most peaceful, prosperous, fulfilling, and happy lives conceivable - even by *their own definitions* of these terms. That is, if all honest people were aware of the natural law and followed it, they would restrospectively conclude that doing so improved their lives.
For what is the natural law good? It is good for minimizing conflicts among men, advancing technological progress, cultivating mutual goodwill and understanding, and establishing material and intellectual improvements in all spheres of life. Ask yourself the question: would you like to live in a world where all men respected the natural law, or in a world where they did not? If you prefer the former alternative, then this *by itself* is enough to conclude that natural law is good.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
by following the natural law, human beings can achieve the most peaceful, prosperous, fulfilling, and happy lives conceivable - even by *their own definitions..minimizing conflicts among men, advancing technological progress..., etc..Your assertion natural law is good because it achieves these results. Obviously, the truth of your statement is conditional - based on whether these are good.
You have merely moved your absence of "proof" to another point, which you haven't proven, or even as yet given reason, that these are good.
I too believe these are "good." in general. However if we are not to rely on the sphere of religion (absolute/non-conditional - with or without a diety), we have to stick to the rational, the only tool we have in your stated method is reason/logic.
That means you still have to provide the proof for these values upon which you've conditioned the truth of the value of 'natural law'.
In order to follow your stated method, you need to give the reason why, for example: "advancing technological progress is better than not advancing technological progress."
We may or may not agree on whether this value is "good," but either way, a system solely based reason, requires more.
"…If you prefer the former alternative this *by itself* is enough to conclude that natural law is good."
That I prefer something is proof that it is right and good? Can a valid ethical system reduce to "what most prefer = ethical"? (The logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.)
Ethics requires establishing values of right and wrong, not preferences.