1.1 The Law of Human Nature
As human beings, the author says we are like other creatures on earth that are governed by laws of gravity, or certain biological laws that govern things on this earth; we have no choice but to obey. There is, though, one law that we can choose to obey or not. It is a law that we call the law of human decent behavior. It doesn't matter what part of the world we live in, Dr. Lewis says, people differ very little when it comes to right and wrong as related to the law of human decent behavior. We do not always take it into consideration when we should be doing it to other people; nonetheless, we recognize indecent behavior when we are expecting it and do not receive it. There are two things, the author points out, that all human beings all over the earth have in common: (1) this idea that they are to behave in a certain way, and they cannot really get rid of it; and (2) they do not in fact behave in that way — they know the law of nature and they break it.
1.2 Some Objections
…show more content…
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
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.
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
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
the laws of man and kept in check by society's own norms. The human struggle to
Proper Order in Confucianism and as taught primarily by Mencius, the Chinese philosopher, is the conceptual theory that instructs how people can reach their highest potential of moral and material well being embodied in Mencius' conception of human nature. The theory of proper order is the primary and philosophical means to that end. Although proper order may seem in many ways philosophically abstract, Mencius' teachings of proper order in history have had lasting and tangible effects on modern East Asian politics and its relationship between the state and society, and even on a narrower level of the individual and community. In fact, the theory of proper order starts first at the individual level and from there flourishes to create a positive rippling effect throughout all of society. This profound theory and its ideals is credited with developing a social society in East Asia which acknowledges the great potential of each of its citizens, but still aspires to consider the effects of individual actions on the common good and not to just ignore the interests of society as a whole. This has helped guide East Asia through its long and colorful history and has helped to shape it into the political and economic powerhouse that it is today. But where exactly did such a significant theory which has helped to define an entire society come from? What exactly is proper order, how can we create it, and why is it needed to achieve Mencius' human nature? Most of these questions can be answered in explaining the fundamental virtue that all humans have according to Mencius, our humaneness defined in human nature.
A society that is ruled by liberty contains morals, morals that come with rights that must be respected in order to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously they must accept an individuals “right to do wrong” from a moral perspective. Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views.
The concept of liberty stems from the system of natural law. It is highly dependent on the belief in natural law, in regards to three different aspects. First, the foundation of both concepts. The natural law has been influential in many ways, therefore concepts can be developed or derived from such a system. Secondly, the ideas found in liberty are similar to those found in the natural law in regards to the law being controlled by an entity. Finally, for protection against arbitrary offense to ensure a state of equality. This concept depends on natural law by representing similar principles on infringement of rights. Ultimately, liberty can be seen as a concept adapted from the system of natural law in order to keep the same principles and
Wade, N. (2007, September 18). Is ‘do unto others’ written into our genes? New York Times Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?sq&_r=0
When you were younger I’m sure your teacher asked you and your classmates what you wanted to be when you grew up. I remember some of my classmates wanting to be a fireman, a police officer or a doctor. I wanted to be an educator. Being the naive and carefree child that I was, I had no knowledge of what responsibilities or rules would be packaged into this career. Now that I am in college earning my Bachelors in Elementary Education, my perspective of how a teacher should act and care for their students. As you continue reading, I will discuss my professional responsibility, the code of ethics I will follow, and the high moral standard that I set for myself.
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
Humans have notably different ethical standards which dictate what is or isn’t correct. Those standards are shared and followed by a group of people. For example, the concept of killing is not unknown. The typical response is to punish the one who commits that “crime,” even if that person was “right” to do so. However, killing may not seem like a crime to some people. Rather, to them killing is necessary for protection. Given that there are many cultures in the world, one can assume that each of those cultures is not like the other. They must all have their own ethical standards. In addition, it is suggested that a person refrains from assuming that one’s ethical standards are superior or inferior to another person’s standards. Cultural Relativism
It holds that, as a matter of fact, moral beliefs and practices vary between cultures (and sometimes between groups within a single society). For instance, some societies condemn homosexuality; others accept it; in some cultures a student who corrects a teacher would be thought to be disrespectful; elsewhere such behavior might be encouraged. The rules, principles and standards that constitute a morality differ in different religions, and cultures, just as they differ historically. The morality of ancient Greece was not the morality of feudal Europe or contemporary American; the morality of the Trobriand Islanders is not the same as the morality of the Kwakiutl Indians (Barnet, 2008). In this paper I intend to argue that moral reasoning
The human phenomena of conscience and the instinctive concepts of respect and consideration are only a few of the positive qualities that have helped shape complex cultures with all the many different belief systems throughout the world. Every different society in the world has different laws and rules that guide the behavior of their members.
...ple is affected by the laws and lifestyles that they follow. Many dislike the idea of change, and reject any new ideas that could alter their societies norm. Civil rights, homosexual relationships, and religious beliefs are three prime examples of how society has been changed over the course of time. Rousseau contradicted himself, stating that religion keeps the peace, however the most bloody battles in history have been over religious beliefs. Change will be adapted to one way or another, even if the morality of the people is set on two different sides. Time, politics, and war will depict the present and the future of society as a whole.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.