The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity"
This was originally a post but I thought the discussion would be best in a thread of its own.

I started reading "Mere Christianity" (thanks Walty) last night and, although I can see a lot of logic to what Lewis says, I'm not quite sold on his argument for the Natural Law. I can see it makes sense but I can also see how the idea of morals as a social construct makes sense. I don't really see a universal "moral law".  Moral archetypes, like "thou shalt not murder", could come from a sense of empathy rather than a law infused into the hearts of men by God as Lewis argues.

Also regarding the natural law I'm not yet sure on how a "can" equals a "must". I'll use the example of contraception. We can observe that sex leads to children and, Lewis points out, this "law", unlike the laws of gravity etc., can be obeyed or disobeyed. I'm a bit confused on how an observation turns into a binding law or if scientific laws which are evident from observation can be compared to natural "laws" which aren't' so evident.

The reproductive organs primary use is to procreate.
Contraceptives inhibit this function.
Thus contraceptive sex is wrong.

See, that makes sense to me. But then I start applying the same principle to our other faculties and it just seems absurd.

The lungs primary use is to breath.
Smoking inhibits this function.
Thus smoking is wrong.

The eye's primary purpose is to see.
Wearing a blind fold inhibits this function.
Thus wearing a blindfold is wrong.

Messages In This Thread
The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity" - by Historian - 02-17-2010, 09:35 PM
Re: The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity" - by JonW - 02-19-2010, 09:26 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)