PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS
MERE CHRISTIANITY
INTRODUCTION
In chapter one C. S. Lewis has stated unequivocally that 2 facts provide compelling evidence for the existence of God Himself: (1) the existence of the Law of Human Nature and (2) the fact that we don't keep that law.
Lewis wants us to understand the Law of Human Nature as being a general awareness among all people of the knowledge of right and wrong. Another term for this awareness of right and wrong might be conscience. Lewis claims that the Law of Human Nature is NOT simply a phenomenon of one particular culture. Rather based upon his study of various cultures, Lewis claims that this Law is common to most, if not all cultures.
Having made this claim, in chapter 2 Lewis feels that he has to back it up this claim. Many anthropologists and psychologists will claim that there is no such thing as the Law of Human Nature. Instead they will say that what we claim to be the Law of Human Nature is either instinct or social convention. He writes chapter 2 to attack these notions and to defend what he claims to be the Law of Human Nature.
CHAPTER TWO: OBJECTIONS
(Before answering the questions below, number your paragraphs 1-8 to help you find the answers more easily.)
The Law of Human Nature is Different from Natural Instincts
Paragraph 2:
According to Lewis which of the 2 instincts does the person follow?
Why does he follow that particular instinct?
For the rest of the chapter Lewis is going to compare instincts/Law of Human Nature with playing a piano. In this paragraph how does he compare instincts/Law with playing the piano?
Paragraph 3:
How does a man drowning illustrate what Lewis is saying here?
In many cases movies touch upon important themes which move us and speak to ultimate reality. For example, Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman is considered one of the greatest movies of all time. Throughout the movie you don't know if she (Ilsa) is going to end up with her husband Victor Lazlo whom she greatly admires or with Ric whom she is deeply in love with. (We've been told that throughout the entire filming of the project, the writers themselves did not know whom she was going to end up with; it was not until the very end of the shoot that the writers themselves decided.) Although the movie wants you to pull for Ilsa to go with Ric, she ends up with her husband. The movie is powerful because it shows people who have great emotions pulling them in one direction nevertheless deciding to go in the direction they should go. (This movie deservedly won Best Picture at the Academy Awards that year, the year in which WW2 was at its peak. The American people needed reminding not to go with their emotions, but to do what was right in fighting evil in the world.) This ability to do the right thing even though strong emotions are pulling us in an opposite direction is what separates humans from animals.
Paragraph 4:
How does the example of the piano illustrate Lewis' point?
When can an instinct be wrong?
Paragraph 5:
When you claim that one instinct is superior to the other, what happens? For example, what happens whenever you claim that love is the superior instinct?
My mom who is very merciful and tender towards the down and out. Recently she was approached by a minister from Mexico asking her to support him financially. Although all the evidence indicated that this was an unwise move to make, she nevertheless went ahead and supported him financially. Another instinct other than mercy should have governed her actions.
The Law of Human Nature is Different from Social Conventions
Paragraph 6:
Paragraph 7:
Another major difference between the Law of Human Nature and social conventions is that whereas you can NOT say that one social convention is better than another, we are forced to say that one morality is better than another morality. For example, we would feel like we were moral idiots if we did not think that our morality was no better than the morality of Islam-fascism.
Law of Human Nature is very much like math in that (1) there is too much consistency between different moralities and (2) it is natural for you to think of one morality being better than the other. Lewis agrees that you can claim that one set of morality is superior to another. For example, we would all agree that our morality is superior to Nazi morality. If it is true that one morality is superior to another morality, what ultimately is true?
Paragraph 8:
Book One
Chapter 2
Many (psychologists) claim that the Law of Human Nature is nothing more than natural, herd instinct. According to Lewis though the Law of Human Nature comes into play whenever 2 instincts conflict. What example does he give of conflicting instincts?
Some people will claim that the Law of Human Nature is nothing more than the stronger of two conflicting instincts. How does Lewis respond to that?
Some will claim that the Law of Human Nature is just one of our instincts. Lewis rejects that notion. According to Lewis are there right and wrong instincts?
Are any of the instincts superior to the others?
Lewis does NOT deny that you can LEARN the Law of Human Nature. Because it can be learned, some claim that it is nothing more than just social convention. Simply because something is learned, does it make it untrue? What example does he give?
One major difference between the Law of Human Nature and social conventions is that whereas social conventions vary from culture to culture, there is a strange consistency among the different cultures morally.
Some claim that there is no such thing as the Law of Human Nature (an absolute standard of right and wrong) because they claim that moralities have changed over the years. They list the example of witches as evidence that our morality has changed over the past several hundred years. How does Lewis counter this claim?