Mere Christianity - Bk. I - Ch. 4 - What Lies Behind the Law

On August 20, 1941, C.S. Lewis delivered his third talk on the BBC then entitled, "Materialism or Religion."  It became the fourth chapter of Broadcast Talks published in England in 1942, and The Case for Christianity published in the United States in 1943.  When published as Mere Christianity in 1952, Lewis changed the title to "What Lies Behind the Law."

Lewis begins by summarizing the previous chapter about the reality of the moral law, something we cannot explain, something we expect everyone to follow, even though we realize we often fall short of this standard.

So Lewis moves on to what this means.  He explains two basic views about the universe.  First the materialist view which explains the universe just happens to exist by chance.

By one chance in a thousand, something hit our sun and produced the planets.  By another chance in a thousand, some matter on this earth came alive, and eventually by another very long series of chances, those living creatures turned into something like us.

The second view Lewis calls the religious view.  Behind the universe is something more like a mind, being conscious, with purpose, and definite preferences.  This mind produced creatures like itself - with minds.  Both views have been held for a long time throughout human history.


Now Lewis wants to make it quite clear that science simply cannot resolve this issue.  He says science has a very proper role within its limitations - that which can be tested by experiments.  Those who try to use science to answer this issue usually do not understand the limitations of science.

Lewis also points out that we do not just observe mankind, we are men (or women) - we have inside information.  We know the moral law does not just describe just what we do - instead it strongly informs and pushes us towards what we ought to do.  This inside information gives us a clue - points the way to a mind outside of the observable facts - which strongly influences us to behave in a certain way - the moral law.  If we look at a house or building, we can't see the architect, but we can see how that mind shaped the design of the edifice.  When we see the postman delivering mail, we have some idea of what he delivers to others based on the inside information we derive from what we receive when the postman delivers the mail to us.  Otherwise, if we just saw a postman delivering mail without this inside information - we would likely have no idea what he was doing.  Lewis compares God with a sender of letters who tells us to obey the law of human nature.

Lewis cautions the reader - he has not yet started to describe the God of Christianity.  All he has done thus far is to describe Something which directs the universe, who urges us to follow a basic law of right and wrong - something more like a mind rather than matter - since it would be difficult to imagine matter giving us instruction.

Bk. 1 - Ch. 3 - The Reality of the Law

Bk 1 - Ch 5 - We Have Cause to be Uneasy

Overview of Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity - Bk 1 - Ch. 3 - The Reality of the Law

On August 13, 1941, in the midst of the London blitz, C.S. Lewis delivered his second BBC talk, which he called "Scientific Law and Moral Law.  Later, when those talks were published as "Broadcast Talks" in England, and as "The Case for Christianity" in America, it became Chapter 3 with the same name, but when it was republished as "Mere Christianity" in 1952, the name of this chapter was renamed, "The Reality of the Law."

Lewis begins by recalling the first chapter, that though people thought they behave a certain way - fair play, morality, or some other name, they in fact did not not.  Lewis points out this state of affairs has certain consequences.

Inanimate objects, like trees and rocks, observe the laws of nature, but not by choice.  In stark contrast, humans choose whether or not to follow the moral law, the law of human nature.  Thus, while the law of nature simply describes how rocks and trees behave in nature, the Law of Human Nature tells human beings what they ought to do or not do.  While the law of nature simply describes the facts with regard to the rocks and trees, the Law of Human Nature deals with something above and beyond the facts.

Some try to explain this as simply a matter of inconvenience - that if someone behaves in a manner

you think he ought not, this simply means it's inconvenient to you.  Lewis objects.  If a man takes a seat you want on a train because he got there first - you don't object.  However, if a man slips into the same seat while my back was momentarily turned, and removed the bag I placed there - I strongly object.  Both cases involve inconvenience to me, but the first man I do not blame while the second man I blame.  There are other examples whether the behavior of others might be very convenient to me, yet I still recognize their behavior is quite wrong, such as a traitor during war.

Others say what we call the moral law simply amounts to what's best for the entire society instead of the individual.  Though Lewis agrees in part, he argues this misses the point -  it's circular.  The argument basically says you ought to do what is right because it's right.  It simply doesn't go any further.  Lewis compares this to saying you ought to play soccer in order to score goals.  However, scoring goals is the whole point of soccer - it's not the reason for the game.  By saying this - Lewis says you are basically saying you should play soccer to play soccer - something not worth saying.  Same as if you said you should behave decently in order to behave decently.  Circular.

We have a basic sense, derived from somewhere other than just nature, that we ought to behave a certain way, and we cannot get rid of that notion.  It must be a real thing - not something we made up.  It's not simply a fact - not simply our behavior - since we know we ourselves do not follow this standard of behavior.  Lewis points to a real law, pressing in upon us, which we did not make up.

Bk. 1 - Ch. 2 - Some Objections

Bk 1 Ch 4 - What Lies Behind the Law

Overview

Mere Christianity - Bk. 1 - Ch. 2 - Some Objections

Lewis gave this as the firth BBC talk on Sept. 6, 1941, originally called "Answers to Listeners' Questions.  Originally, the BBC scheduled him for four talks, but his talks not only generated much interest, but many listeners asked questions, or raised objections, so a fifth talk was added to allow Lewis to respond to them.  Later, Lewis simply called this "Some Objections," in the book forms.

Some asked if the Moral Law Lewis referred to in the first talk was not simply herd instincts.  Lewis did not deny human instincts - such as mother love, food instincts, or even sexual instincts.  However, he distinguished them from the feeling you ought to help someone, whether you wanted to or not.  When someone cries for help, you feel two desires - first, a desire to help - and second, a desire to stay and keep yourself out of danger - the instinct for self- preservation.  However, you find a third thing that tells you to follow your instinct to help, and suppresses the instinct to run away.  Lewis argues by comparison that third thing is the moral law, which is like a sheet of music which tells us which notes (which instincts) to play.  .  (BTW, Lewis does not care what you call the Moral Law.)

Lewis gives another way of looking at this.  If two instincts are in conflict, all things being equal, the stronger instinct should win out.  Instead, we find when two instincts conflict, we often choose the weaker one.  The instinct to be safe should overrule out instinct to help others, but we feel a stronger tug to help others because of the Moral Law.  Lewis points out since instinct cannot instruct us which instinct to follow - it must be something outside of instinct itself.  Instead, we find the moral law is the thing which tells you which note to play on the piano - which instincts to follow.

Lewis compares the Moral Law to a music sheet which tells you which notes (which instincts) to play.  Just as there are no right or wrong notes - only right or wrongs notes depending on the sheet of music - so there are no good or bad instincts - only good notes - good instincts - depending on what the sheet music calls for at one time or another - and thus only good or bad instincts depending upon the situation we face and what that situation calls for in order to adhere to to the Moral Law.

Other people wrote saying what he called the Moral Law was only moral convention - merely put into us by education?  Lewis responds this usually involves a misunderstanding.  Many think everything we are taught involves mere human invention.  Lewis disagrees.  Though we learn the multiplication tables  from others, it's not a mere human invention. In a similar manner, though we learn the Rules of Decent Behavior from others, it does not follow that all of them are human inventions.  Some are, such as which side of the road to drive on, which can differ in other countries.  However, others are like mathematics - not mere human inventions.

Lewis argues that the Moral Law belongs in the same class as mathematics for two reasons.  First, most societies, people, and cultures throughout history largely agree upon the Moral Law, with some relatively minor exceptions.  Second, we deeply believe the moralities of one society, people, or culture, is far better that others.  Otherwise, it would make no sense when we condemn the moralities of others - such, as for example, many condemned the moralities of the Nazis in the midst of the war when Lewis originally gave these talks (and as most do to this day).  Lewis points out such talk strongly indicates we ardently believe in a standard of right and wrong beyond the reality of our lives, and thereby admit, sometimes inadvertently, of that reality.

As an example, Lewis talks about New York City.  He reasons why your idea of it might be better than his is because there is a real New York City to compare those ideas to.  If instead, we just meant the New York City in our mind, then there would be no way to compare them to.  In that case, each of our ideas of New York City would be equally valid.  In a similar manner, Lewis argues that the Moral Law only existed in our minds, then we could never condemn anyone.  But we in fact do condemn others because we strongly believe in a real, objective moral code.

Finally, Lewis talks about an objection by someone who points out that three hundred years ago, people put witches to death, and who thus object to the notion of an objective moral law.  However, Lewis points out that the reason we do not do the same is because we no longer believe in real witches.  If we did, if we actually still believed in persons who had sold themselves to the devil, received from the devil supernatural powers and used those powers to kill our neighbors, drive them mad, or bring devastating weather upon them to destroy our crops - we would naturally want to stop or destroy them - but we no longer believe this.  We simply don't put out mousetraps if we no longer believe there no longer exists mice in the house.

Overview

Bk. 1 - Ch. 1 - The Law of Human Nature

Bk. 1 Ch. 3 - The Reality of the Law