Final answer:
Natural law theory has a complex history and has not shifted entirely from apriorism to empiricism, but reflects a dynamic synthesis of both. Classical natural law is based in theology, but later thinkers introduced empirical methods to understanding natural laws. Today, the theory integrates components of both theological insights and empirical observations, suggesting option C as the most accurate.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether natural law theory has evolved from apriorism to empiricism touches upon its historical and philosophical development, considering strong contributions from theologians and philosophers alike. In its classical form, as derived from thinkers like Aquinas, natural law is deeply rooted in a theological framework, positing that reason can help humans discern the God-given natural order.
However, later thinkers such as Aristotle, who did not believe this order was divinely inspired, and Hume, who advocated for the empirical observation of nature's laws, contributed to a debate that merges theological insights with an empirical understanding of the natural world.
Addressing a common belief of natural law being intrinsically human, questions arise about how this distinguishes us from animals and how our environment shapes behavior, challenging solely innate conceptions of natural law. Acknowledging the complexity of human traits and how they might be reconciled with natural law (considering contrary views like that of Hobbes) further complicates an aprioristic standpoint. The theory's capacity to absorb such critiques arguably points to an evolution towards a theory that synthesizes both aprioristic and empirical approaches, reflecting elements of C. The evolution of natural law theory has led to a synthesis of apriorism and empiricism, incorporating both perspectives.
Indeed, the advancement of empirical science and the theory of evolution have challenged the traditional natural law's reliance on a God-given moral order. Nevertheless, the continual interplay between the aprioristic theological assumptions and empirical observations has not led to a complete shift towards empiricism. Instead, a nuanced and dynamic interaction reflects the ongoing debate within natural law theory. This indicates that the theory neither fully has transitioned to empiricism nor remained purely aprioristic but has integrated aspects of both, explaining its sustained relevance in contemporary philosophical discussions.