I ask this as an open question rather than one that can be answered perfectly because I think the answer isn't as simple as a single line or paragraph. For me, I think there's no divide between a natural law and a consequence based ethical system as that which precedes on an intention (of an ethical law) must be given form as an action which gives shape that intention (that its meaning is more than flowery words and fluffy feelings). If I suppose humans act a certain way or have certain parameters to their actions (which much variation can exist) which are indeed immutable from case to case. Natural law theory for me lacks that connection to action to make worthwhile (the is/ought problem can be corrected if there was some sort of "action axiom" from which it can leverage the rest...). Equally, I think consequentialism loses out from the fact that one can in one case make what was in a previous case an immoral act into a moral one. This absurdity of such theories based purely upon consequence can lead to contradictory conclusions based on the same premises. It's denial of the certaintude (is this even a word?) of human being (existence) makes me question it entirely.
So what do you all think? Is ethics purely one of a natural law or consequence driven method or something of a synthesis?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Law comes from reason(intellect). Will is of the irrational moral order in the person. Law comes from intellect meets with will and this is known as practical reason. This is where moral order happens which is another way of saying order of action. Intellect (where law is apprehended) acts in unison with will. Natural law is apprehended from what is and with will the application of the natural law is therefore a rational law (as stated this meeting of reason/intellect with will is practical reason). Positivism ignores intellect and denies what is and therefore applies law inclining more on will than intellect. Yet since reason and will act in unison in human nature the application of positivism ends up applying natural law from time to time yet the theory of the law is faulty and based on false theoretical reasoning due to positivism outright denying of metaphysics and epistemology - the denying of intellectually apprehended what is. Thus positivists, depending on the extremity, will even apply natural law while at the same time state they are not applying natural law. For they are either not aware of what natural law is or they have another agenda based on distortion, and ultimately will (coercive application not heeding reason). Since their justifications only intermediately investigates the science of law (natural law), then the outcome of positivism is still arbitrary.
People wonder why Austrian economics isn't used - there's the answer. I heard a discussion on a TV news show some days ago in which one person asked another if they thought the Obama healthcare will still be forced through. The person said yes. This forcing through, without reason, is positivism. This forcing through of Keynesianism or what have you mainstream economics used today (Chicago school, etc...) in this centrally planned economy - why not Austrian economics? Cause Austrain economics is intellectually apprehending what is, other schools maybe as well, but the political economy in the U.S. is based on will - the forcing of an economy based not on intellectual apprehension, but more inclined upon the irrational moral order of will. Thus Austrian economics is way on the other side of this spectrum away from the might makes right (will) of the State. Intellect is abandoned in positivism. It's why it doesn't make sense when really thought about. This also leads into why a lot of injustice has been happening, especially on Wall Street, the SEC has been turning a blind eye for a long time, Goldman Sachs connection to the Treasury Dept., D.C. not following the Constitution, etc, etc... reason is being abandoned and increasingly so. Inclination of will leads to totalitarianism - that's positivism.
So where that unison action occurs, the application of intellect with will, that being where moral order is, ethics happens in that instance.
did that help?
If we're speaking of neo-Aristotelian natural law theorists, they reject the divide between deontology and consequentialism as being tenable (they do however reject utilitarianism specifically.) Long has an essay on this called Why justice has good consequences or something to that effect. I've not read it yet but it sounds like a good place to start on the matter.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...