Under the natural law position described, killing an innocent person is:

• A. It is permissible in some cases
• B. It is wrong
• C. It depends on the context
• D. Unknown

Answer: (B)

In natural law thinking, morality is rooted in objective human goods and the proper order of life and flourishing. Life is a fundamental good that belongs to everyone, and human beings have a duty to respect it. Killing an innocent person directly treats a person’s life as a means to some other end, rather than as an end in itself, and this violates the basic moral order.

Because an innocent person has not violated any obligation or posed a justified threat, there is no morally relevant justification under natural law to take their life. The only legitimate uses of force in this framework are to defend against a direct threat or to prevent serious harm, and those defenses target the aggressor or the harmful act, not an innocent bystander. Thus, killing an innocent person is inherently wrong.

The other options imply that context, circumstance, or uncertainty could render such an act permissible or unknowable, but natural law holds that the wrongness of harming an innocent is objective and not dependent on the situation.