Argument For The Existence Of Moral Law

According to Lewis, human suffering in today's society is related to God's creation of nature with free will and human beings with free will. Lewis explains that when God created us free, He also created a free

Lewis' argument in the third book is most important to the point I want to discuss. He argues through this chapter the Christian behavior. Morality is what he considers to be the basics of good Christian behavior. Lewis states that morality is not simply, "something that prevents you from having a good time", but rather morals are the "directions for running the human machine". Every moral rule is there to prevent wear and tear on the way machine operates. He realizes that is why the rules seem to be constantly getting in the way of are natural behavior. Lewis sees that some people think in terms of moral ideals not rules and obedience. Ideals suggest preference to personal taste. Something that subjective would be meaningless in practice. Idealistic notions are meaningless unless we try to carry them out. Acting on ideals requires rules. Lewis uses the analogy of the ship to show how ideals without rules can go wrong. If the ships keep on having crashes they will not be able to sail. If their steering gears do not work they will not be able to avoid crashes.

In the essay of “The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S.Lewis, he says “it is useless to compare the moral ideas of one age with those of another: progress and decadence are alike meaningless words.” Our society constantly changing, people’s view follows the change and it also produces action. We can’t be shifting around by what the world views are. We must have a biblical worldview which we can find from the Bible. As I am studying theology it is my responsibility to bring the biblical worldview to those who have a different worldview.

The Law of Nature is discussed greatly in the book Mere Christianity of C. S. Lewis, who asserts that it is the Law of Nature which makes humans obligated to do the right thing. According to Lewis, this law can also be referred as The Real Morality or the Standard to which all people follow, and which people use to evaluate their and others’ behaviors. The Law of Nature tells the people which circumstance is appropriate to execute certain actions, and which situation is not suitable for certain behavior. For instance, in every human, there is a warrior trait, which is said to be necessary by the Law of Nature in order to protect oneself against life-threatening beings, but to be wrong when it is used to injure the innocent people. However, the Law of Nature functions beyond the machinery of evaluating

In chapter one, Lewis makes two fundamental points. The first is that all people have this idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and they cannot to get rid of it. Secondly,

C.S. Lewis begins Mere Christianity by talking about the Law of Human Nature. He argues if there is a higher standard for something, a focal point for how humans should act, then that in itself points to the existence of a Creator. He talks about right and wrong and that it is not necessarily about what is right and wrong, but the fact that people believe in a right and wrong. He says people don’t believe they meet the standard for how they should act. Another point is that man did not make the Law of Human Nature because that law is a standard we cannot meet, but are always striving for. In fact, humans are anxious to make excuses for not behaving decently. Often times, people will justify their claims on what they are doing, which points

According to Lewis in Book III, chapter 1 ‘The three parts of morality,’ Lewis speaks on how morality is made up of three parts. The first part is the human and human relationships between one another, which is the part of morality that most people think about. An individual self-care, or inner human is the second. Lewis refers to this part as a ship constantly going in the ocean and how everything such as the engines, and the steering gears work together efficiently in order to create such a smooth seaworthy craft.

The first chapter of Book One, C.S Lewis talked about The law of Nature. After finish this chapter. I realized that C.S Lewis exposed The law of Nature as Moral Law. The explanation for the example of The law of Nature is quite easily understand that how the morality is controlling your mind to do a good thing that not go against dogma. Because of this, it reminded me of the story of myself. The story happened a long time ago, when I was in grade 3, I saw fifty thousand Vietnamese dongs, which equal two and fifty cents dollars on my primary school hallway. At that moment, I need money to get a new toy for myself. I came and picked the money up, put it into my pocket, and walk away. The question bumped into my mind that “should I bring it to the school office or keep it for a new toy? But what if somebody lost it and they need it too?” and I felt like I have to choose between becoming virtuous person or stealer. The final decision I have done for myself to against evil was brought that money to the school office to return it to the one, who lost it. God has to lead me to do a good thing that he wants me to do to against evil.

An author, scholar and Christian apologist born on November 29, 1898 in Belfast Ireland and 50 years post his death in 1963, still remains one of the worlds most influential writers of our time – this is the one and only Clive Stanley Lewis (Jack). In this essay I will share a brief overview of Lewis’s life, his key teachings and share my opinion on whether they are relevant and impacting today.

In this essay, I will be arguing that Zagzebski’s argument illustrates that it is rational to believe that God does exist. I will briefly explain the “Does Ethics need God?” fundamental argument about morality that is presented in Zagzebski’s argument. After the first two parts of my essay I will discuss some objections and respond them. I will argue that Zagzebski’s argument indeed proves that God exists and I will do this by outlining the main claims of this argument and by responding to objections to this argument.

To address the subject “Right and Wrong as a Clue to Meaning of the Universe,” the (Lewis, 1952) stated that, “first, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.”

The main goal of this chapter is to elucidate the explanatory target of this thesis. Empirical research on morality is abundant, but discussions about the nature of its explanatory target are often vague or completely absent. Building upon Sinnott-Armstrong and Wheatley’s (2012, 2013) ideas, I would like to argue that neither moral judgments nor moral norms are unified explanatory targets. In particular, I will argue that there is no property or set of properties that unifies all the members of the class of moral judgments or the class of moral norms—a negative thesis that I call the ‘disunity thesis’. I will explain why this issue matters (or should matter) for people working on the empirical research of morality, and I will put forward some

Lewis’ essay was a garble of contradictory nonsense that had not matters in dealing with Nazi barbarism or outrage. Instead it contradictorily discusses morality, incorrectly explains the moral law, and illustrates points with stupid examples. First, Lewis begins by saying that contrary to popular belief “different civilizations and different ages” have only has “slightly different moralities” and a mere two pages later reaffirms that the differences “aren’t very big”. Carelessly enough Lewis slips a few lines down saying, “some moralities are better than others”. How can one morality be better than another if all moralities are practically identical? They can’t. Lewis cannot make the competent decision of whether cultural moralities are vastly different or practically the same. Next, the moral law is described as a note on the piano. Oddly enough, Lewis says that the “note on piano needs to be played louder can’t itself be that note,” yet ask any musically inclined person and they can describe to you the symbols on a piano piece indicating crescendo and decrescendo as well as the symbols for piano and forte. All these symbols on the note are the note’s way of tell the pianist to play louder. Lewis implies that an instinct can be “made stronger than it is” yet, instincts are just there and cannot be stronger or weaker. Nazi morality is perhaps the biggest oxymoron ever spoken about as if

Singer expects a radical transformation of societal moral behavior; Arthur argues that this transformation is irrational and open to question of its moral integrity. He contends that our morals codes are intended to reflect the humanness of our person. Arthur reasons that we are not perfect in all our actions, and Singer’s “greater moral evil rule” asks us to be. Making clear his position that no change to the moral structure of society is necessary because it is “morally reasonable”

A person’s idea of ethics guides them through difficult life concepts such as right and wrong, or good and evil. This allows a person to define set principles and standards that they have conducted based on these beliefs. This decision can be founded on religion, culture, or their own general beliefs. In our postmodern society, it is not anything out of the ordinary to have these different options that help us define morality. C. S. Lewis, explains in his book, Mere Christianity, that even with all the many options, the only clear way for a person to derive a set of rules for themselves is to base it off the words in the Bible.