Book Summary
C.M Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a book that introduces the premise of Christian faith. Lewis begins by writing that there is a universal law of nature. That is there is a universal moral code that dictates how human beings should behave. Lewis acknowledges that there are differences in moral standards between different societies; however, deep down, there are moral standards that are common to all societies. He writes 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” (Lewis, p.13). Lewis also discusses some of the rebuttals to his arguments on a universal moral code. Lewis argues that morality is neither instinct nor an intuition that has developed over time nor a social convention as some people would argue. Throughout history, people have had a sense of morality. While modern society may deem some acts of previous societies as immoral, the only difference between modern society and the older society is that modern society is more informed. Lewis adds that the moral law of nature is law is similar to scientific laws of nature except that in moral nature, people have a choice. Lewis rebuffs the theory that moral nature is simply a way for society to decide on what is harmful or not. Lewis, however, argues that morality is so much more than that and includes intent, among others. The law of nature is the innate sense in people to want what is good for society. The “rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing— a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves” (Lewis p.18). The fact that all people have a sense of what is right and wrong implies that there is a powerful being that cannot be explained by science. It is this moral law that Lewis espouses in the initial chapters that form the foundation for Christianity. One cannot become a Christian without acknowledging the existence of moral law.
Lewis makes some good points in Book One. In Chapter One, he argues that there is an unbreakable moral law. I agree with Lewis that while different cultures may have different standards of morality, deep down, there are certain standards of moral laws that are identifiable in every society. For example, most societies believe in fairness, justice and virtues such as bravery and loyalty. A practical example can be seen in the table manners of different societies. In most Western societies, chewing loudly and belching are considered ill behaviour. However, in cultures such as Japanese culture behaviour such as chewing loudly are welcomed on the table and are seen as a form of appreciation for the one who prepared the meal. While these moral codes may seem different, they are both anchored on the principle of behaving in a manner that shows respect to the host. The only difference is in how this respect and appreciation is expressed. I do not, however, agree that people disagreeing that morality necessarily means that morality is real. When people argue, they could be arguing for selfish interests. Therefore, the reference to morality could be manipulation, so as to present one’s case in a manner that seems moral, because a person is already aware of the idea of morality and how it affects people. Therefore, this could be a case of reverse causality whereby the need to win an argument brings up the issue of morality, rather than the issue of morality, bringing up the argument.
On Lewis’ argument that morality is not a product of human instinct, there arises two opinions. In a way, I agree with Lewis that morality cannot be an instinct because it predisposes us to danger. Most human instincts that have developed though evolution have been aimed at self-preservation, and because morality sometimes urges us to put out lives at risk it follows that it may not be a human instinct. However, when looking at the issue beyond the personal and into the societal ethos then the theory that morality is an instinct makes a hint of sense. Most morality is underpinned in preventing ourselves and mostly others from harm. Because human beings exist in societies, and need society to thrive, then it follows that people felt the need to be moral for continuation of society. But at the same time, why do people feel the need for society to continue when they know fully well that their lives are short. It agrees with Lewis’ argument that perhaps, morality is a universal law, bestowed upon us by an all-powerful being.
Lewis postulates that there is an all-powerful being who exerts influence on human society through morality. While I may not agree with Lewis that the all-powerful does not manifest their influence in the physical paradigm because science would swoop in and postulate explanations, I do agree that there is an all-powerful being that expresses itself through morality. This is because science does not offer a concrete explanation of the moral inclination of all human beings. Science tries to explain morality as evolutionary or social, but the type of morality seen in human beings is not the same as the one for other animals with whom we share a common ancestry share a common ancestor. There is, therefore, a gap in this explanation which can be explained by Lewis, argues that there is an all-powerful being that controls the universe. After all, absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. Lewis’ book one is important not only to Christians but for everyone because we all share a common moral code.
References
Lewis, C. S. (1996). Mere Christianity: Comprising the case for Christianity, Christian behaviour, and beyond personality. Touchstone Books.