Defining the Natural Law in Ethics

Complete ONE of the following essay questions below and transmit back to me by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, 3/4/2021. This is also posted on Blackboard.
The expectation is that the weekly essay assignments are formal essays. That means an introduction, a main body, and a conclusion. General rule for the main body is that the number of paragraphs corresponds to the number of points being made.
Assignment E2: Answer ONE of the following.
2A. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality". Master-morality values pride and power, while slave-morality values kindness, empathy, and sympathy. Master-morality judges actions as good or bad (e.g. the classical virtues of the noble man versus the vices of the rabble), unlike slave-morality, which judges by a scale of good or evil intentions (e. g. Christian virtues and vices). For Nietzsche, morality is inseparable from the culture which values it, meaning that each culture's language, codes, practices, stories, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two moral structures. Walter Kaufmann suggests that master-morality is revealed in the Iliad, and slave-morality is indicated by the New Testament. Characterize the main ethical suppositions of both of these works. Does your characterization support Kaufmann’s observation?
Note: When Nietzsche claims that morality is inseparable from the culture which values it ... that makes him a moral relativist, so bear in mind that moral relativism is the context of this essay. Don't start immediately with responding to Kaufmann's suggestion -- give the necessary background, i.e. what moral relativism is, why Nietzsche's views match those of moral relativism, what Nietzsche says about these two fundamental types of morality and his conclusions about them. Then show how the Iliad represents "master-morality" and the New Testament represents "slave-morality," as Nietzsche defines them (or, if you disagree, show why they don't). Then tell me whether you support Kaufmann's observation (which would be your conclusion--make sure you give reasons for the position you take).
2B. According to Thomas Aquinas, what is natural law, and what is the source of whatever ends and purposes there might be in nature? Why is natural law more basic or higher than the laws of any particular society? What makes someone a good person, according to the natural law theory? How do we come to have moral knowledge? What is the difference between natural law and scientific laws? How is natural rights theory dependent on natural law theory? According to natural rights theory, just what does human nature require and what rights are central, i.e., to exactly what do human beings have a moral right? Do they include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence asserts? Why/why not?
Note: This is a fairly straight-forward essay question, consisting of nine specific questions. Answering the first question would constitute your introduction (btw, comparing Aquinas' understanding to Cicero's definition might be a good idea). Answering the rest of the questions would be the main body. Then just wrap it up with a conclusion.