The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity"
(02-17-2010, 09:57 PM)Walty Wrote: Have you read the entire first book of Mere Christianity?  He addresses a lot of the issues you raise here, primarily, that it is a social or biological construct.

Yes. I can't say I found it very convincing. There's:

"The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great-not nearly so great as most people imagine-and you can recognise the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent."

Which I personally think is a cop out. I'd say that the morality of different cultures is extremely different. Anything from the fundamental understanding of family, when it is and isn't appropriate to kill someone, how animals should be treated, how women should be treated etc. Perhaps the wide spread dissent from the Natural Law in 2010 is evidence that rather than being innate it was just a human construct dependent on various social factors.

The other reason he gives is: "When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? "

This I think appeals to our bias and subjective taste. I think chocolate better than vanilla, Europe better than America but at the same time these are merely my preferences. I think with this question Lewis invites one answer, yes. Because everyone has their preferences. However I'm not so sure if these preferences cross over into an objective order. I haven't finished the book yet so I hope he addresses my questions about the can = must thing.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity" - by Historian - 02-17-2010, 10:17 PM
Re: The Natural Law/"Mere Christianity" - by JonW - 02-19-2010, 09:26 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)