Rape - forced sexual intercourse - had to be declared not a "good" (uh-oh, I have to watch out for "ungood"!) because it damaged our ability to live in harmony with one another, at least in our own groups, I suppose raping some other tribe's females was considered at best neutral.
(if KK doesn't ban me for 'modifying your quote' ..)
This is where wee see the complexity of social contract, as these 2 groups must now form a contract between them. This could be a simple 'non-aggression agreement' (don't kill me and I won't kill you. if you kill one of us, we'll kill you all), it could be extended to mutual trade, or it could even eventually come to reach a point where the two intermarry to the point that they become, in effect, one ingroup, rather than each viewing the other as a group farther away from the center ego that members of their own village. (imagine this in your own life. There's you. Then there are family and close friends. then acquaintances, neighbors, and further out... Each successive 'ingroup' is less valued and less important than the preceding group). Or, this system could fail and war could develop.
I started pondering this in middle school and learned a few years ago that the concept of 'social contract' had already been thrown around before. I read up ion some research for new ideas, but I try to avoid relying on other sources when thinking about things until it's time to throw my conclusions out into the boards for review.
From all that it seems to me that we (I'm ascribing this idea to Aristotle but for a moment I want to keep him out of the discussion) invented the concept of natural law to describe that which was good for us, individually and collectively.
It was a way of understanding it before modern knowledge allowed us this new insight, just as the gods explained thunder before Man learned about electricity.
One of the ways the binding effect of natural law could be bolstered was by enlisting gods.
Certainly. Ascribing it to an authority (with the power to punish) expanded upon social contract and legal/social ramifications and was /is an effective means of controlling (and manipulation) the masses. Thus, organized and standardized religions were born. Historically, religious authorities have oft been political and social authorities as well, because of this.
So what I'm trying to argue is that natural law exists as a concept to bring together the protocols that enhance communal human life. So it exists because humans exist, it doesn't exist without humans. "Nature red in tooth and claw" doesn't envisage natural law, humans do.
Agreed. I thought you were getting at 'natural rights' and absolute morality-style 'natural law' at first. Now I see that we're effectively saying the same things in different words.
But then so do gods I suppose. But natural law can be seen to operate in practice. Have you watched two kids arguing and one yells out, "but that's not fair!" 
