It has struck me that the spirit of Natural, Moral Law, as conceptualised and propagated by independent researcher and activist Mark Passio, is both descriptive and prescriptive in essence.
To avoid shallow, Darwinist, under-educated understandings of the term 'Natural Law', which some predictably interpret as the phenomenon whereby the strong vanquish the weak, the aforementioned researcher has described it as "the set of laws that govern the consequences of behavioural choices", in the sense of "reaping what you sow", a definition which points to Natural Law's descriptive quality, i.e. its congruence with the truth of Being, what is.
Yet elements of Moral Law are purely prescriptive such as the forbidding of murder, rape, theft and coercion since these occur all the time all over the planet.
It might be added - at the risk of stating the obvious - that violation of Moral Law results in harm being done to the person whose right to physical, financial, psychological integrity has been interfered with by the violent violation and it is questionable, to say the least, whether the party who brought about the injury, whether it be an individual, an organisation or the State itself, will truly incur any kind of karmic harm for doing so.
Thus it would seem that the descriptive aspect of Natural Law is slightly over-emphasised by Passio, as keen as he is to place it on the same level as, say, the physical law of gravity, when in fact the Law is more of an imperative commandment to those who have a conscience than a descriptive, point-of-fact reality whereby those who violate the Law will meet with inevitable suffering as a direct result of violating it.