Moral Law Chapter 1 Summary

To sum this quote up, Lewis is referring to John 1:29. This bible verse is referring to God’s sacrifice of Jesus Christ, his only son, in order to save the world. Jesus is known as the lamb, so pure and kind. Although five year old John Lewis did not realize it at the time, this quote would guide him through life. In a way, Lewis is relating himself to Jesus Christ. He must sacrifice himself for the good of others, just as Jesus had done. He risked his life many times, was jailed, put in prison, gassed, as well as faced many other challenges all for the cause he believed in. Lewis was able to do this because he knew God would look after him. This is evident when John Lewis took part in a sit-in at a restaurant that lead to him being beaten and thrown into jail. He says, “I was not afraid. I felt free, liberated--like I had crossed over” (Lewis and Aydin 1: 102). What Lewis is referring to is crossing over into heaven. He was not scared because he knew God was leading him. This reminded me of Proverbs 3:5, which says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” He put his whole life in Jesus’ hands, for he knows that God will direct him towards the right path. It did not matter what life threw his way, Lewis stayed true to his faith. God had his future planned out, and he had

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

In chapter 2 of the Ethics Primer Svara discusses many important ideas. Some of these included the importance of people who work for the government doing their civic duty , 3 types of ethical reasonings brought up by a student, and Lawrence Kholbergs model of moral judgement. In the book Svara brings up how people in certain roles have a job to do. They must meet the expectations expected of them or they aren’t serving the public in a full capacity. As you read on the 3 types of ethical reasonings are discussed. They are virtue, principle, and to be a public employee. This student I feel has a pretty spot on idea of how people should act. Honesty and following the law are just things ethically sound people should be doing. It doesn't take a genious to understand right from wrong. Finally a major point of the chapter discussed Lawrence Kohlberg and his model of moral judgement. “Lawrence kholberg (1981) offers a model of moral judgement to help understand how the capacity for ethical reasoning develops and explains the motives for acting at different stages of development”.(23) More specifically he gives the six stages of maturity children go through. These being punishment and obedience, instrumental relativist, good boy;nice girl, society maintaining/law and order, social contract, universal ethical

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.

Book 3 of Mere Christianity contains 12 separate chapters, which has far too great a scope to address properly here, so a glimpse will have to suffice. In the first, Lewis examines three components of morality; the relations between men, the interior moral mechanics of a man, and the relationship between a man and the God who made him. Lewis makes the case that, since we are destined to live forever in one state or another, it is desperately important that we pay attention to the sort of Being we are becoming. Lewis points out that most of humanity can agree that keeping relations between men running smoothly are important, but varying world views and religions-or lack of religion, have produced some disagreements on the necessity of keeping one’s own ship in order, as it were, and it completely breaks down when the relationship between a man and his Maker are addressed, as there is virtually no agreement there.

The question of whether or not God exists has been asked by billions of people since the concept of religion emerged. Many people try to explain things such as hurricanes and tornadoes as “Acts of God” or even the existence of human beings and the world itself to be “created” by an almighty power. Others claim that the harm they inflict was demanded of them by their God. CS Lewis argues that through the comprehension of standards of good and bad, God’s existence is proven. However, Lewis’s defense for the existence of God is adequate because it fails to acknowledge the possibility for people to be good on their own, without the instruction of a supernatural entity.

Wonderful, short, summary of the views applicable to this case, and the defense for the view that you hold most. However, I believe that there is more to the Christian-principle based view of ethics, than what you give credit for. According to Arthur F. Holmes’ book, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, one would find that the Christian view holds four tenants, or ideas, to shape the understanding of ethics, in which these views are: cases, area rules (moral rules), principles, bases (theological and philosophical). Thereby, one must go through these four sets of criteria to figure out if an action is right or if it is wrong. Following this line of logic, and if one were to look in the Bible for the answers, one would find torture is not right.

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)

Moral Law Vs. Natural Law "At the dramatic center of The Scarlet Letter is the idea of the awesomeness and inescapability of the Moral Law, to which all else is finally submitted,"� (Levy 384).

Chapter 4 of “The Elements Of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels opens up by raising a question. Does morality hinge on religion and does religion then turn contingent to morality? In 1995, Judge Roy Moore was sued for having the Ten Commandments out in plain view on his desk. The American Civil liberties Union was called to act upon this infringement. The union stated that Judge Moore violated the first amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Despite the controversy with the ACLU,

In the article Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Laws, Arthur A. Leff took an agnostic approach when determining what morality should be comprised of. He suggested that humans struggle with desiring to follow a predetermined and unchallengeable set of moral rules, while at the same time wanting the autonomy to create those rules.

What is the basis of our moral beliefs? In the article “The Moral Instinct,” Pinker contemplates this basis. To begin, Pinker sheds light on the idea of moral reputations and how we are attracted to the sanctity of individuals, consequently preferring the now saint Mother Teresa to the billionaire Bill Gates. Later in the article, Pinker combines his observations of the value of sanctity into Haidt’s hypothesis of moral experiential variety. Haidt’s hypothesis is that there are five foundational beliefs that everyone holds to a certain degree: a desire to not harm innocent individuals, a concept of fairness, a sense of community, a respect for authority, and an exaltation of what is considered pure.

Lewis tries to explain what he believes are two realities about man. He explains that the Law of Human Nature is a standard that tells man what should be done. Everyone agrees with the Law of Human Nature, this law is truth and they express it, but they do not live by this law. Men feel pressure to act a certain way to behave in a manner that is expected of him. However, man also does not do what is expected of him. Men behave in a certain way and we sit back and judge knowing that they should be behaving in a completely different way. Lewis is trying to convey to us that man does not just obey what is expected of him. Man knows what he should do but he simply does not do it.

Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.