Two parts here.

1 | What support can be given to the claim made in yesterday’s post that, despite its trouble with natural law, Eastern Orthodoxy wholeheartedly accepts natural law? (I am convinced via sources such as these that it does.) 

Why, then, that trouble?

2 | What the Orthodox reject is the claim, made by contemporary proponents of natural law, that there are natural-law solutions to our dividedness.  

[1]

Writes Dylan Pahman, 

Fr. Michael Butler gave an engaging lecture on the subject of Orthodoxy and natural law … [and] gave a list of seven overlapping convictions about natural law, which I will reproduce here from his course notes:

A comparison follows between views of both Thomas Aquinas and Maximos the Confessor.

Thomas Aquinas: Natural law is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.
Maximos the Confessor: Natural law is participation in the Logos via the logoi.

Thomas: All men know truth to a certain extent.
Maximos: Natural law is evident to all without instruction.

Thomas: Principles of natural law pertain to practical reason.
Maximos: Principles of natural law pertain to natural reason [which is the same as practical for him].

Thomas: First principle of natural law is “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.”
Maximos: First principle of natural law is the Golden Rule.

Thomas: Natural law includes pursuing knowledge and living in society.
Maximos: Natural law includes pursuing knowledge and living in society.

Thomas: Virtue is natural to man and natural law is the same for everyone.
Maximos: Virtue is natural to man and exists in everyone equally [presumably in potentia].

Thomas Aquinas: There is some variance in [human] laws derived from the general natural laws.
Maximos: Failure to discern the logoi in creation turns the natural law into the law of the flesh or of sin.

Dylan Pahman, “Fr. Michael Butler: Orthodoxy and
Natural Law,” Acton Institute Powerblog (21 June 2013) 

Or consider this article by Fr. Stanley Harakas, who gives evidence from a roster of Orthodox figures. Here is one example; have a look at the full article (JSTOR.org is a valuable resource with a free tier).

St. John Chrysostom expresses clearly the teaching of the Church on the question of natural law, the “nomos physeos” or law of nature, as he preferred to call it. The law of nature, for Chrysostom, is a true law and any positive law opposed to it is not worthy of obedience as false. The law of nature is general, eternal, and immortal. Special revelation is not needed to understand its precepts; it is known naturally. The law of nature is identified with the natural logos or reason. It is the moral teacher of mankind.

“God placed in man the inborn law (emphyton nomon), to serve as does the captain over a ship, or the charioteer over the horse.” John Chrysostom, To Those Who Are Scandalized, 8

Stanley S. Harakas, “Eastern Orthodox Perspectives
on Natural Law,” in Selected Papers from the Annual
Meeting (American Society of Christian Ethics) (1977), 41-56

[2]

There is no Orthodox objection to natural law; what the Orthodox reject is the Enlightenment claim that on a basis of ‘self-evident’ natural-law assertions we can

(a) turn the opponent of righteousness (on sexuality, euthanasia, abortion, gender, etc.) into an advocate of such righteousness

and/or

(b) craft just laws forbidding practices like abortion, euthanasia, ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’, etc., that the advocates of those practices can see (via their God-given reason) to be just laws properly supported by what we can’t not know

‒ and if they cannot see it, too bad, because they are objectively wrong and are stopped by a just law (“error has no rights”).

Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart:

There is a long, rich, varied, and subtle tradition of natural law theory … most of which I acknowledge to be … perfectly coherent. My skepticism [about it] has nothing to do with any metaphysical disagreement. I certainly believe in a harmony between cosmic and moral order, sustained by the divine goodness in which both participate.

My chief topic here [however] is the attempt in recent years by certain self-described Thomists, particularly in America, to import this tradition into public policy debates, but in a way amenable to modern political culture. What I have in mind is a style of thought whose proponents … believe that compelling moral truths can be deduced from a scrupulous contemplation of the principles of cosmic and human nature, quite apart from special revelation, and within the context of the modern conceptual world. This, it seems to me, is a hopeless cause.

David Bentley Hart, “Is, Ought, and Nature’s Laws,”
First Things 231 (March 2013), 72

For a Protestant voice marking a similar objection, here is Stanley Hauerwas:

… the identification of natural law with secular reason in the attempt to insure a common moral discourse can result in a failure to recognize the challenge presented by the development of the modern state.

Stanley Hauerwas, The State of the University:
Academic Knowledges and the Knowledge of God
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 166