Mere Christianity: The Law of Human Nature and Some Objections

Summary

These are the first chapters that truly get into the meat of the book. In chapter 1 (The Law of Human Nature), Lewis argues for the existence of God by stating that we all, when in an argument, appeal to a law greater than ourselves, whether we are conscious of it or not. We appeal to fairness, or, in a greater sense, right over wrong. While we might argue, for instance, that we can cut in line because we have more pressing matters than the person we cut in front of, it is a rare person who argues that the rules of not cutting in line don't matter. 

Lewis argues that this instinct or urge must come from somewhere and that it is similar across all cultures. (He supposedly delves into this more in The Abolition of Man, which I haven't gotten around to reading yet; it sounds like an interesting read). Lewis further points out that, unlike other natural laws (such as gravity), this law of morality is not universally followed, though it is universally acknowledged. We might appeal to fairness, but we try to find ways to get out of being fair when it benefits us. Rather than saying that fairness doesn't matter, we still try to uphold it, even though we know we're going to fail. It's a rather peculiar thing that I'd never thought about much.

 In the second chapter (Some Objections), Lewis addresses some well-thought counterarguments to his position. First, he points out that one might argue that this law of morality is merely a herd instinct. However, what happens when morality comes into conflict with another instinct (such as the need for food)? How does one instinct win out over the other? Mustn't there be a third inclination (the moral law) that judges between the two which is appropriate? Otherwise, why would people rush to someone's aid who is calling for help (or at least feel they ought to go help, even if they don't)?

The other counterargument he addresses is that the law of morality is merely a taught convention. He firstly points out the similarities between moral standards across cultures as compared to other standards (such as dress or which side of the road is appropriate to drive on). Then he argues that, even if morality is taught, it is more akin to mathematics than anything else. Truth about the moral law can be discovered and implemented, judged against one's internal conscience. If you say that many moralities are better than that which the Nazis held, what standard do you judge it against? Your own? Do you merely prefer it, or do you truly think it right? Most people would say they are convinced of their own morality mirroring a true morality--again, a comparison to a "gold" or true standard.

Discussion

Where do you think conscience comes from? What role does it play in our walk with God and does it change if we are Christians? If so, how?