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