Final Answer:
In applying natural law ethics today, the intrinsic moral value, hence good, for natural law ethicists would prioritize saving a younger individual's life over an elderly individual's when faced with a life-threatening situation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Natural law ethics, rooted in the belief of an inherent moral order, values life as a fundamental good. When confronted with a scenario where life is at stake, prioritizing the preservation of life aligns with the foundational principles of natural law. In such situations, ethicists following natural law would likely consider the potential for a longer and more fulfilled life when deciding between saving a younger or an elderly individual.
The inherent goodness associated with preserving life is central to natural law ethics. This ethical framework asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong based on their conformity to the natural order. In the context of a life-threatening situation, the age factor becomes significant. Given the assumption that a younger individual typically has more years ahead to experience life, contributing to the common good, natural law ethicists would argue for prioritizing the younger individual's life.
While the direct answer may seem straightforward, it is crucial to note that natural law ethics doesn't advocate for arbitrary age discrimination. Rather, it emphasizes the intrinsic value of life and seeks to maximize the potential for individuals to fulfill their natural purpose. In conclusion, the prioritization of saving a younger individual's life in a life-threatening scenario aligns with the core tenets of natural law ethics, emphasizing the inherent goodness associated with the preservation of life.