The submissions for this assignment are posts in the assignment's discussion. Below are the discussion posts for Kyle Panchot, or you can view the full discussion.
What Does Lewis Mean When He Says, “Wherever You Find a Man Who Says He Does Not Believe in a Real Right and Wrong, You Will Find the Same Man Going Back on This a Moment Later”?
He means that, though a man may deny believing in a universal moral law, inwardly he still knows it is true. As soon as he is the one being wronged, he will likely appeal to that law as grounds for why the perceived wrong must be righted. If he is the accused, he will invoke it as the basis for why he did not transgress the law in the first place. Either way, his actions—whether he is conscious of it or not—betray the fact that he is, on some level, aware of that moral law.¹
Romans 2:14–15 — “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires … they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.”²
An example of this would be a man who risks his life to save someone else’s child.
Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, offers an alternative explanation of the law of human nature, arguing that one’s motivations are governed by whatever is most likely to preserve one’s own genes. While this may explain a father’s inclination to risk his life for the sake of his child, it does not explain the inclination of a man to risk his life for a stranger’s child. If he were placed in that situation and failed to act, he would surely be haunted by his inaction.³
Nor does it explain a man who fulfills his civic duty by leaving his family and going off to war—especially a war far from home.
John 15:13 — “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”⁴
In both cases, if he were to perish, he would be putting his own family in harm’s way by doing so. Yet something inside him tells him he has a responsibility beyond his own family and, if he can reasonably do so, he should act to defend his neighbor’s family as well.
Leviticus 19:18, 34 — “You shall love your neighbor as yourself … the stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native, and you shall love him as yourself.”⁵
The force of this truth can almost be heard in Cain’s defensive reply, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Deep inside, he knows the answer is yes—and that he has failed to keep his brother in the worst possible way.
All of this points to something in the human condition that is external to itself. If there is something within a man that compels him to act not only against his own self-interest but also against the self-interest of those closest to him, then—regardless of whether he chooses to act—that impulse must have its origin in something external to himself. Someone beyond him makes a claim on that man and a claim on his actions, and that Someone can only be God.
“You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”
— Saint Augustine, Confessions, Book I, chapter 1 (1.1.1).⁶
Notes
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 5.
- Rom. 2:14–15 (RSV-2CE).
- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 11.
- John 15:13 (RSV-2CE).
- Lev. 19:18, 34 (RSV-2CE).
- Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 3.
Bibliography
Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.
Hello Jeri,
That is a very interesting example you give using slavery. It is true that our culture’s universal condemnation of slavery today points to an ultimate moral truth. But what I find interesting about the example is that, in the past, it was exactly the opposite—slavery was almost universally accepted around the world until the values of Christianity gradually persuaded people that slavery was immoral.
Perhaps this is an example of how, though we know the moral law written on our hearts, we often fail to follow it. This certainly applies to individuals, but perhaps it applies to entire societies as well. For example, the Nazis with their treatment of the Jews, or the Aztecs with their human sacrifices. In these societies, these things were largely accepted, though maybe not universally. I imagine that if the roles were reversed and, overnight, those in power became the victims, they would be quick to object on moral grounds that it was unjust.
“Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right…” (Isaiah 10:1–2).¹
---
Citations (Footnotes)
1. Isaiah 10:1–2 (RSV-2CE).
---
Bibliography
The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.
Hi Jessica, thanks for the post.
You wrote that, “one thing that they claim is that there is no ultimate truth and no ultimate right or wrong. Part of this is due to the fact that they believe we're all products of evolution... so it goes to reason for them at least that there shouldn't be any right or wrong.”
I completely agree with you on this. I have often in the past expressed my lack of surprise at the increase in mass shootings, because I find there to be a certain logic behind them. If we are all products of a Darwinistic, atheistic type of evolution—where we are here by a cosmic accident, and our continued existence relies on the survival of the fittest—then if I'm tired of my life and I have a beef with you, why should I not take you out with me? I see it as taking their logic to its natural conclusion.
Though it is interesting to see that many of those on the left, while holding to the exact same worldview, express a universal moral outcry over such an event. Not only are they being inconsistent with their own worldview, but their outrage is also a reaction that is almost instinctive. Though it goes against their professed beliefs, they almost can't help it—which, as you rightly point out, points to a higher truth, something beyond their own reasoning.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).¹
---
Citations
1. Isaiah 5:20 (RSV-2CE).
---
Bibliography
The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment