Moral Law vs Herd Instinct and Social Convention
Mere Christianity Book I, Chapter 2 Some Objections
In my last post, we discussed the existence of a real Right and Wrong, what Lewis calls the Law of Human Nature (in other words, how humans ought to behave), and we discussed the fact that we all break that law. Lewis writes at the end of chapter one, "These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." In chapter two, Lewis firms up that foundation by explaining further what the Law of Human Nature is, and what it is not. For some reason that I do not know, Lewis refers to the Law of Human Nature as Moral Law in this chapter. This label makes more sense to me, and is probably what I would have called it all along, but I suppose that is beside the point. On to the first objection.
Some say that Moral Law is simply our herd instinct that has developed just like all our other instincts. Lewis gives some great examples to show that Moral Law is not the same as our instincts.
"Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires -- one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct of self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of those notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."
I personally love the music analogy! He goes a bit further to show that Moral Law is not an instinct. Typically, when our instincts are in conflict (herd instinct says to help, self-preservation says to go away) we usually feel we ought to side with the weaker of the two. You would much rather stay safe than to dive in and save the drowning man, but something tells you to do just that. Again, this thing telling you to go with the weaker instinct could not be one of those instincts itself. Moral Law also tells us we should try to make that weaker instinct stronger. "I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing." This is just another way of knowing Moral Law is not itself an instinct. Your herd instinct can't tell you to make it stronger so you can do the right thing.
Finally, if Moral Law was just one of our instincts, then it would follow that some of our instincts would always be "good" and others always "bad." If you think about it, this is not possible. The truth is that there are always times Moral Law will either suppress or encourage any impulse or instinct. "It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses -- say mother love or patriotism -- are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct are bad...there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries...Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another."
On to the next argument: Isn't Moral Law just a social convention that we are taught? Someone asking this question is assuming that everything handed down to us from teachers or parents is a human convention. An example Lewis gives is the multiplication table. We all learned that in school, and a child on a desert island wouldn't know it, but that doesn't mean it is something we invented for ourselves that we could change if we wanted to. It's true, some things we learn are just human convention, but others are real truths, like mathematics. What category does Moral Law fall into? Lewis gives two reasons why Moral Law is in the same class as mathematics...a real truth. The first reason was already discussed in chapter one. There are differences in morality between different societies, but never a total difference. The second is this: We often compare moralities and say one is "better" than another. By doing this we are in fact measuring both up to a standard Morality, and thus admitting such a thing exists, a real Right and a real Wrong, or a Real Morality.
That pretty well sums up chapter two. Moral Law is not the same as an instinct or a social convention. I feel like I am basically summarizing the book, but there is just too much good stuff to leave much of it out. Especially all the music and piano analogies! If there are any readers who have objections to the existence of a Moral Law, please bring them up! I'd like to explore them. I, personally, am convinced that such a thing exists, and thus far am out of objections.
Next time we'll look at Chapter 3, The Reality of the Law.
Thanks for reading!
In my last post, we discussed the existence of a real Right and Wrong, what Lewis calls the Law of Human Nature (in other words, how humans ought to behave), and we discussed the fact that we all break that law. Lewis writes at the end of chapter one, "These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." In chapter two, Lewis firms up that foundation by explaining further what the Law of Human Nature is, and what it is not. For some reason that I do not know, Lewis refers to the Law of Human Nature as Moral Law in this chapter. This label makes more sense to me, and is probably what I would have called it all along, but I suppose that is beside the point. On to the first objection.
Some say that Moral Law is simply our herd instinct that has developed just like all our other instincts. Lewis gives some great examples to show that Moral Law is not the same as our instincts.
"Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires -- one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct of self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of those notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."
I personally love the music analogy! He goes a bit further to show that Moral Law is not an instinct. Typically, when our instincts are in conflict (herd instinct says to help, self-preservation says to go away) we usually feel we ought to side with the weaker of the two. You would much rather stay safe than to dive in and save the drowning man, but something tells you to do just that. Again, this thing telling you to go with the weaker instinct could not be one of those instincts itself. Moral Law also tells us we should try to make that weaker instinct stronger. "I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing." This is just another way of knowing Moral Law is not itself an instinct. Your herd instinct can't tell you to make it stronger so you can do the right thing.
Finally, if Moral Law was just one of our instincts, then it would follow that some of our instincts would always be "good" and others always "bad." If you think about it, this is not possible. The truth is that there are always times Moral Law will either suppress or encourage any impulse or instinct. "It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses -- say mother love or patriotism -- are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct are bad...there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries...Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another."
On to the next argument: Isn't Moral Law just a social convention that we are taught? Someone asking this question is assuming that everything handed down to us from teachers or parents is a human convention. An example Lewis gives is the multiplication table. We all learned that in school, and a child on a desert island wouldn't know it, but that doesn't mean it is something we invented for ourselves that we could change if we wanted to. It's true, some things we learn are just human convention, but others are real truths, like mathematics. What category does Moral Law fall into? Lewis gives two reasons why Moral Law is in the same class as mathematics...a real truth. The first reason was already discussed in chapter one. There are differences in morality between different societies, but never a total difference. The second is this: We often compare moralities and say one is "better" than another. By doing this we are in fact measuring both up to a standard Morality, and thus admitting such a thing exists, a real Right and a real Wrong, or a Real Morality.
That pretty well sums up chapter two. Moral Law is not the same as an instinct or a social convention. I feel like I am basically summarizing the book, but there is just too much good stuff to leave much of it out. Especially all the music and piano analogies! If there are any readers who have objections to the existence of a Moral Law, please bring them up! I'd like to explore them. I, personally, am convinced that such a thing exists, and thus far am out of objections.
Next time we'll look at Chapter 3, The Reality of the Law.
Thanks for reading!
Comments
Post a Comment