I think he makes a convincing case that there is a basic standard of fairness that all people and nations unconsciously expect others to achieve. I don't think there are many who would disagree with the form of universal law presented. Even people who believe in moral relativism espouse peace and tolerance, which are themselves a form of universal law.
What might be more controversial is the assertion that the law of human nature is as fundamental as gravitation. Moral law is considerably more complex and less well defined than physical laws like gravitation (which can be described by a single equation). Biology might be a better analogy. It is a fuzzy science that has some basic actors (DNA, the cell) which result in considerable variation.
The fact that there are Christians coming from every culture in the world speaks to a set of universal principles. People from every conceivable moral background have found value in the teachings and principles of Christ.
4 comments:
Why do we do the things we shouldn't do?
It seems that this applies to more than just morality. But even to our biology. We want to eat bad food that makes us fat and unhealthy. We want to be lazy and not exercise. We want to be passive and not use our brains. But all those things contribute to the body falling apart. You would think that we would have some programming in us that would make us crave healthy food.
It's interesting when you think of that analogy, you notice that when you are doing healthy things you are more likely to crave healthy things. if you workout regularly. You tend to want to workout cause your body knows that it needs it. But if you haven't worked out in a while, it seems like sooo much inertia to get your fat ass off the couch and do anything -- "I don't want to get the mail, I'd have to put on pants"
I wonder if this applies to morality. If we are engaged with our faith and working on being the kind of person we should then we have a strong desire to keep at it, but if we allow ourselves to get self-absorbed, then a type of spiritual lazyness sets in and we have no desire to try to be better. We just live on in our moral ruts with the same bad habits and behaviors we've always had.
It's hard for me to think of right and wrong as a fact. Clear as gravity. It seems like morality is so nuanced, situational. On the otherhand, it does feel like something instinctual. Something that you can't explain why it's right or why it's wrong -- you just know that it is.... I wonder if it is possible to separate natural law from cultural norms. I've traveled quite a few places and I know that there are things that are "wrong" here that aren't "wrong" in other places and vice versa. But I think if you meditate on the deeper issue as to why something is culturally wrong you may find that it is a cultural expression of a deeper truth -- for example -- politeness... how to express politeness differs from place to place but the concept of being polite seems to be universal. And being polite is a form of respect. And respect is a form of love. And thus something simple can be connected to a deeper truth. I just wonder if this is always the case....
Lewis ends this chapter by saying there are two main points: All humans everywhere have an idea of proper behavior and that everyone does not follow it. This is what he defines as human nature. While I agree with it, I'm wondering how this morality changes with different situations. For example, the morality of a starving person, or someone in prison, inner city gang, or being super rich and/or powerful. I mean fair is fair in all situations but what about the times when our, or our kids', way of life or very survival is at stake. Does human nature change? I think Lewis would argue no. I guess I hope it doesn't but I don't know.
I want to say that Lewis is trying to convey that there is a root law that is deeper than our cultural expressions of right and wrong. For example. Having more than one wife might be something we consider wrong. But it wasn't wrong for Abraham and it isn't wrong in many places in Africa. However, having an affair is wrong - universally -- as is taking advantage of women or mistreating them. (Although it is easier to get away with in some places than others).
I think there exists both universal and cultural / situation moral code. I feel like universal law is harder to explain. It's the stuff that Jesus was all about -- breaking Sabbath to heal people and whatnot. Universal law might be something like love. But since we can't define it we try to pin it to specific rules that apply to our cultural and situational context. Having traveled a fair bit, I can say that there is a pretty wide gap between what we see as right and wrong and what people in other cultures where I have lived see as right and wrong -- or maybe better put -- proper and improper. But at the core. The deepest sense. There is a sort of moral common ground that is hard to explain but is in the gut of everyone equally.
What's interesting is I think adhering to our cultural norms is part of adhering to universal law. I think for someone to try to take a 2nd wife in our cultural context goes against universal moral law, while if someone in Africa does it, it isn't.
But that's just my 2 cents on the whole matter.
I very much appreciate Kelsey's comments in regard to Christians being one of the reasons non-beleivers don't embrace the faith.
Walking a christian walk that draws non-beleivers in is all are goal. I had the pleasure a few weeks back to walking along someone who was coming to Christ and was very excited about their new faith. Yet why isn't this an everyday thing for me since I claim to be a christian and I want all on earth to have everlasting life....yet I find I do the things I don't want to do and lead an example that is far from what my goal is.....a prime example of Lewis' stated two things....
Post a Comment