BOOK I. RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE
Explain what Lewis means by the “Law of Nature” or the “Law of Human Nature.” “The Law of Human Nature” refers to the Law about Right and Wrong whereas the “Law of Nature” refers to the natural laws which people recognize as basic things like gravity and/or the laws of chemistry.
When people are quarreling, to what are they appealing when they say, “How’d you like it if someone did the same thing to you?” (p. 3) They are appealing to some rule of decent behavior or morality.
When you hear a cry for help from someone in danger, you probably feel two desires. Explain these desires. What is the third thing you feel and how does it help? One desire is to go and help them due to our herd instinct, and the other is to stay out of that said danger due to our instinct of self-preservation. The last thing you feel is the impulse to help and not run away. Moral behavior may be a product of instinct, but that doesn’t follow that morality itself is just instinct.
…show more content…
Why? What are the implications? One is measuring both moralities by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to the standard more than the other.
Explain the difference between the Law of Human Nature and physical laws. Laws of human nature are different than physical laws because the laws of human nature are dependant on an idea manifested in them of how humans should and should not behave. Physical laws refer to things of this world; for example,
Natural law is a concept with a long history dating back to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Despite some variations among philosophers one point of agreement was understood as “that process in nature by which human beings, through the use of sound reason, were able to perceive what was morally right
Social Contrast: Social contrast is an agreement between people to cooperate for their own benefits and
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,
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
Natural law- the idea that principles of morals and rights are inherent in nature and not human made; such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind. Positive law-human made law.
Common law is created from the customs and precedents set in the country rather than statutes created by Congress. Common law allowed more discretion on behalf of the judges originally, but less room for change down the line. Natural law is the basis for human contact and does not waiver on moral principles. Natural rights are less vague than the law; meaning, natural rights are part of a person. You cannot be a person if you give up your natural rights, these rights are inalienable, and are the rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Legal positivism emphasizes the belief that law is synonymous with positive norms. The norms of legal positivism are created through common law. Legal positivism also argues that the legality of an issue does not settle the morality of issues; legality is always separate from
Lewis argues that everyone has a inherent sense of right and wrong. This is observable through a man’s feeling of how people “ought” to behave. One should not confuse moral law with instinct, because if there are two conflicting instincts within a person, Moral Law will point to the weaker of the two instincts. Impulses in themselves, Lewis explains, are like keys on a piano. Neither key is good or bad on its own, but all the “right” keys within the correct context. Moral Law tells use which keys to play.
If people were to follow any one instinct all the time, the results would be disastrous. Any instincts that come from flesh and blood cannot always be trusted. The Moral Law can suppress or increase certain instincts, because it dictates what is morally correct. There are some instincts that need to be suppressed given the situation, so it would be foolish to blindly follow one instinct all the time. So, the Moral Law will direct our impulses, depending on the situation. The Moral Law is not to be confused with the Rules of Decent Behavior, which is more social convention and can be learned through education. The Moral Law cannot be taught, and was not invented by humans. The Rules of Decent Behavior can differ depending on circumstance, or where you live; whereas, the Law of Human Nature is an innate understanding, or something we are born with. It isn’t governed by social convention; it’s a law of right and wrong that is as much a real truth as mathematics. The minute you compare one set of moral ideals to another, you are comparing it to a higher standard. Something I think a lot of people get hung up on about the Moral Law is what it entails. People get caught up on “what is right and wrong?” What is actually right and wrong does not matter in this context, it is not the point C.S. Lewis is trying to make. He is not talking about that, he is talking about the fact that such an idea exists--that a “Real Morality” exists--and is the standard that all other moral ideals are being compared to. That is what points to the existence of a Creator. In the next chapter, Lewis brings up that if such a law exists, where did it come from? If there is such a thing as a Moral Law or Law of Human Nature, and if it is something humans could not have created, then who did? Man does not exist on his own apart from the Law, man lives under the Law. This means that there is someone
C.S. Lewis makes his first argument by stating, "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. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in" (p.8). Even though each culture is different each contains their own personal moral code, which in fact are all remarkably similar.
In Genesis the word of God leads humanity in the direction of self preservation, urging them to procreate, to ”Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1), and to minimize hostility and violence among people. As Freud asserted, “Besides the instinct to preserve living substance and join it into ever larger units, there must exist another, contrary instinct seeking to dissolve those units and bring them back to their primeval, inorganic state” (Freud 77). Genesis exemplifies the struggle between the two opposing human instincts, with God acting as a moderator between them. Forms of justice are put into place in an attempt to control these drives, one example being the proclamation that “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The ethics and laws that develop throughout Genesis seek to “prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence” but are unable to control “the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness” (Freud 70). Since they cannot be completely eradicated, the scriptures instead play into the more negative aspects of human nature, especially narcissism, and manipulate them into a force for conservation rather than annihilation.
Human nature by essence has been the cause of many entrepreneurial paths, all follow to known the essence itself behind of what we conceive as life. Moreover it’s righteous description and abstract content, that many great man has humbly studied and that for centuries have made a path closely enough to the understanding of it, yet far from the light, it seems to be and unsolvable question that gives us a “Raison d'être” to our existence in this world.
Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL LAW AND LEGAL POSITIVISM This essay is going to discuss and analyse the differences between two basic principles- natural law and legal positivism. According to Hume, there are two realms of human enquiry , one in the field of facts which is concerned with what ‘ is ‘ actually the case and the other in the field of ‘ought’ that is, what ought to be the case1. Those who believe in the principle of natural law are known as naturalists while those who believe in the principle of legal positivism or ‘positive law’ are known as positivists. This is a brief overview of the two principles of
How do humans actually behave when faced with the decision to help others? The innate desire that compels humans to help is called altruism by psychologists. Through this feeling, humans transform from a selfish jerk to a more compassionate and caring person. Some psychologists believe that this feeling stems from nature itself. Despite the fact that some altruistic acts originate from the pressures of society, altruism predominantly comes from the survival of the fittest, the feeling of empathy, and the selfish desire to benefit your own kin.
Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.