I. The
Law of Human Nature
A: In order to disagree, two must agree
upon right and wrong
1)The Law of Human Nature: The only
law you can break in terms of natural laws
B: The Law is fixed, staying the same in
all times and places
C: We Humans often break the law, though
we expect others to follow it
II. Some
Objections
1:Moral Law is instinct
A: First, we feel three things when faced
with a moral dillema
1) Do the easy thing and avoid
danger
2) Do the right thing, involve
ourselves and give help
3) Finally, a pull telling us we
ought to choose doing the right thing=Moral Law
B: Secondly, Moral Law usually tells us
to side with the weaker of the two impulses, with what we want to do less
C: Third, Moral Law overrides such things
as "good" or "bad" impulses, making impulses good or bad
depending on the situation.
2:Moral Law is just social convention
A: The fact of Moral Progress over time,
and how some cultures moralities are better than others.
1) We measure them by a standard
outside of society
III. The
Reality of the Law
A: We put our oppinions on Scientific
fact and label the facts as good or bad; yet goodness is not determined by us.
B: However, in Moral Law, there is a good
and a bad we can call things.
C: Facts off topic yet true
IV. What
Lies Behind the Laws
A: Two views of the Universe:
1) Materialist: cooincidence
existance
2) Religious: Some mind created the
universe
B: Science cannot answer "Why?"
questions
C: The fullest truth we know is mankind;
the creator's only way to manifest himself is through mankind, from within
ourselves, and from which we can draw conclusions about all mankind.
Write an essay explaining how anyone could believe that they could make statements that apply to everyone everywhere. Aristotle says there is one right plan for happiness. How can he know this without knowing all people everywhere? How can there be a “U.N. Declaration on Human Rights” if all morality is subjective and cultural? What would C.S. Lewis say?
People can make statements that apply to all people everywhere because all men are the same at the core. All men have a common human nature, with the same basic desires and needs, same instincts and abilities. Though every person is also different from all others, the differances are above their common human nature, involving quirks within their nature, not the nature itself. Thus, I can say that all men desire happiness, for example. Or more conseqently, I can say that no man has the right to take another man’s life, and that doing to is murder. One objection to my saying this by others is “How can I know if others are murdering in killing a fellow person?” Yet, because of a common human nature, I know that the same Law of Human Nature applies to everyone, and that I can thus akae moral statements applying to all men.
C.S. Lewis would agree with this argument, because he too believed in the Law of Human Nature. Furthermore, he believed that man can come to understand the creator of the universe through mankind, most notably himself. From that understanding he learns more about all mankind, and becomes more able to draw conclusions about all mankind, because the creator manifests himself in all men, and created them all with the same qualities. Therefore, C.S. Lewis would say that by studying myself and learning about me, I will come to understand not simply myself but all men as well, and know the motives and moralities of all men. Knowing the moralities of all men, I can make general codes of human behavior that apply to all men, things from rules about common decency when I am walking through the halls interacting with people, to the U.N. declaration of human rights.