After reading a passage from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, I can tell you that the Natural Moral Law is something that everyone knows about and everyone is aware of. The Natural Moral Law is another name for the Law of Human Nature. The Law of Human Nature can be described as the Law or Rule of Right from Wrong. Knowing Right from Wrong is different for everyone because it has to do with morals. Everyone has different morals and a different belief when it comes to whether things are Right or Wrong. We are aware that everyone has different morals, because if we were not aware we would not be able to agree on anything. But then again, morals are the reason people disagree on a lot of things. For example, one person's morals could be that cheating
“Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it” (Lewis, “Mere Christianity”). C.S. Lewis, a renowned broadcaster, essayist, lecturer, novelist, theologian, and Christian apologist, used his writing to create a significant effect on the Christian movement. During his lifetime, Lewis went through an amazing transformation from an avid Atheist to a strong Christian, and dedicated his career to sharing the truths of Christianity in his writing. Lewis utilized Christian apologetics to explain and defend his views of Christianity, and made the idea of Christianity more accessible to
C.S. Lewis begins his book, “Mere Christianity”, by introducing the Law of Right and Wrong or the Laws of Nature. This, however, arises a question. What is the Law of Nature? The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, mans distinction between what is right and what is wrong. “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it and did not need to be taught it”(18). Lewis relates the law to how we treat others. We treat others the way we want to be treated and if they treat us poorly in return we become agitated and annoyed with them. He states that we become a society of excuses when something goes wrong. He goes on to say that we want to behave in a certain way when in reality we do the opposite of what is right or what is wrong. We are humans and humans have primal instincts. We are all capable of using our instincts to do right or wrong. Lewis uses an example of a drowning man to prove this point. When one sees a man in trouble two desires or instincts kick into play, to save the man or ignore him because the situation at hand could endanger you. However, there in another impulse that says help the man. With this comes a conflict of instincts. Do you run and forget about it or do you jump in and help. Most people will help even if the situation is going to endanger their life. This is just one way of seeing moral law. The right in a situation will mostly always prevail over the wrong. “Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are selfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but they ought to be”(30). We are creatures of habit and logic. Lewis believes that the moral law is not taught to us rather known by us instinctively. He also believes that the law is real. The law is our behaviors in life via good or bad. Lewis states, “there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior”(30). This opens Lewis to believe that the natural law is both alive and active in mans life today. Lewis goes on to say that the law must be something above mans behavior. He begins to relate this to the creation of the world.
I acknowledge the meaning of Natural Law, and agree with the ways it originates morals. Human nature is a topic that can be argued multiple times, yet there may never be an exact conclusion as to how things should be. Natural Law explains why certain things are right and why others are wrong. First, it is obvious that Natural Law is solely based on humans, since we have the capability of being moral agents. Also it is evident that morality isn 't based on opinions alone, therefore, allowing nature to fill in the blanks to the unanswered
Most can agree that in, most circumstances, these actions are evil, so it can be concluded that there are certain things that a person simply ought not to do. This is the foundation of C.S. Lewis’ Moral Law argument for the existence of God. Lewis argues that every person has a sense of right and wrong moral behavior, and this sense presses upon us. This is what he calls the Law of Human nature, or Moral Law. However, unlike other laws like gravity, this law can be disobeyed. In fact, despite the fact that all people are aware of this law, they constantly disobey
In the first excerpt from the text Mere Christianity, C.S Lewis makes an argument for the existence of a Law of Human Nature using deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a broad statement and comes to a conclusion about an individual idea. In the excerpt given from chapter one, Lewis introduces the concept of law, the physical and biological laws humans cannot disobey which is a universal concept. He makes the claim that there is a law “peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things,” and this law people can choose to disobey. In this quote, he is shifting from general laws to the idea of a law of Human Nature. He makes his opinion known when he states “they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone. And I believe they were right.” Through deductive logic, Lewis allows the reader to contemplate these natural laws, which he uses as the basis to his argument for the existence of a Law of Nature. Moreover, through experience, Lewis claims that everyone has an idea as to what decent behavior looks like or should be. He replies to the objection that different civilizations have different moralities by asserting that they are actually more similar than
Natural law is an absolutist- deontological theory which Thomas Aquinas came up with.An absolutist theory is where evrything is either right or wrong no matter the content. Deontological ethics is having to uphold boundaries set by laws and ignoring any context making it extremely inflexible.Another type of ethics is Relativism. Relativism takes into consideration context and appreciates that not everyone agrees with what's right or what's wrong.Much like Relativism Teleological ethics recognises the content and different views of situations but acknowledges that some things are justifiable and deserve consequences.Aristotle is a well known relative philosopher who uses teleological ethics in his euthyphro dilemma.Natural
The roots of natural law lye in Aristotle’s doctrine that state hat ever substance or nature contains a telso, or in other words a “law of development” (Baumgarth, Regan 1988: xvii). Thomas Aquinas is known for being one of the most influential moral philosophers of natural law; his theory is based on Aristotle’s concentration on the final cause of things, which in turn created a new branch of theology dedicated solely to moral supremacy of the Catholic Church. (O’Connor, 1967: 5) The basic principles of natural law tradition is that all men should strive to do good, and evil should be avoided at all costs, because human nature strives to do good and have a “natural end” which can happen in life only when mans goal is of the vision of God after death (source). Aquinas sates that “…a man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness… directed to his end by a law given by God.” Add some text here.
The Bible is called the “Word of God.” Therefore, did God choose every word or did the authors freely choose their words? Also, how divine is the revelation of Scripture if humans were included in the process? Through the centuries the church’s view of Scripture has remained fundamentally the same, with few exceptions. As early as A.D. 200, the early church father Origen affirmed, “the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God.”2 Yet as Roger Olson points out, the Bible was not dropped out of heaven.3 Therefore, from the Old Testament to the New Testament the church as believed that Scriptures are both divinely inspired and written by human authors. Furthermore, Olson writes, “The consensual tradition of Christian thought and teaching has
Natural Law is the idea that there is a law and concept of right and wrong that exists within the world separate from tradition and the state. For some thinkers such as John Locke this was considered the law of god, for others the natural law exists independent from a deity and would exist even if a god didn’t. Natural law was different in that it was independent from people, their power and their desires. Even kings were subject to
The “natural law is appointed by reason” (Aquinas IV, 94, 1) and given to everyone. This is very contrary to popular belief that right and wrong are relative; however, the idea of an absolute right makes sense. For instance, it is naturally understood that it is wrong to murder. This fact does not need to be argued over; it is innate to everyone. Furthermore, reason does not oppose the claim that murder is wrong. In fact, reason supports it. If murder were to be socially acceptable than all of a sudden, you have to be extremely cautious in every activity. At any time your life could be in danger and there would be nothing to do about it. Such a system would be utter chaos. Furthermore, if murder were to be legal, many people who may make great contributions to society could be killed and there is nothing to prevent it. Now, the problems with this system are not merely selfish but also social ones. So, we would reject such a system. However, we do not need to think through why murder is bad to know that it is. There is no veil hiding the truth of the natural law.
My understanding of the bible is in a ways at conflict, I 'm not sure what I understand when it comes to the bible anymore. Growing up, I was raised as a Christian girl, a preachers ' grandchild at that. Reading and learning the bible is something that I didn 't question I just did it, like a requirement, it was something that was in our weekly routine . But as I 'm growing up and reading the bible I 'm learning how to compare the different verses, critique it, I 'm learning how not to be bias of the bible, and I 'm learning that it contradicts itself. Being that I was raised a certain way within the church, and I 'm now taking courses that makes me question things I never had to question before, my thoughts and understandings are now
Lewis says some folks object to the fact that there is a moral law. Some believe that this is no more than our herd instinct that has been developed. Other say what we call moral law is just a social convention, something that is put into us by education. The author points out that the way each opponent defends his side really shows that there is a right and wrong independent of what people think. Even though the idea of decent behavior makes us suspect whether there is a real natural law of behavior at all, the author concludes that the things we are bound to think about when we explain the differences, really prove just the
From Judaism to Shintoism, religious morals and ethics can be one in the same as values derived from faith often implore ethical living. Unfortunately, morality and religion are perceived negatively, due to bias or over glorification throughout society. However, it is evident that faith is closely associated with ethics (Bromberg 2016.) Often the question “does one need religion to be ethical?” is posed, but through religion, the practice of ethics pursues the common good as the two topics are theoretical and practical alike (Sulaiman 2000 and Donahue 2006.) Natural law is considered to be a fundamental ethical theory and is prominent throughout the religions of the world. Christianity is one advocate of this doctrine as it upholds human intuition to make suitable judgements. “So God created humankind in his image” (Genesis 1:27.) Whatever ethical dilemma one may encounter, as the individual is created in His image, insight will prevail and knowledge from scripture will assist in the verdict that is determined. Similarly, this concept also has a strong presence within the Islamic faith. Qur’anic teachings decree that religion is a knowledge and implementation of natural law – as one is true to himself, he will be true to God (Hakim 1953.) Natural law is evident of the importance of the relationship between religion and ethics. Regardless of faith, ethics and morality is deep rooted within religious belief as it stems back to ancient eras, those of Plato and Aristotle (Healy n.d.) Furthermore, even without religion an individual still has the ability to live ethically as natural law prevails and their conscience speaks on their behalf, depicted by many Atheists. “Natural Law manifests providence and benevolence because nothing else can account for its guidance toward the intelligible goods of every individual and community” (Grisez 2001.) Natural law in conjunction with
...it is a similar response to their own personal one. However there are equally groups who will not find natural law credible because they would find it difficult to believe that the Church has a right to tell women what to do with their own body. In my personal opinion and experience, I would argue that the Church and natural law are loosing creditability. They still have a massive influence on society and decision making across the world, but with regards to ethical problems, humanitarian approaches are starting to dominate. However I think that it is unfair to deem natural law useless because it still has a strong basis in the world. Many humanitarian laws stem from principles such a natural law. Also ethical issues are complex by nature, each one having their own pros and cons, thereby it cannot be said that natural law is completely useless or completely relevant.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.