First Signpost - The Law of Human Nature

They say (whoever "they" are, and boy are "they" busy) that the proper way to give a presentation is to tell your audience up front what they are going to be getting from you. Lewis wastes no time telling us what he wants to get across with the title of the first portion of the book: "Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe." If I didn't know who I was going to be reading, I might think the author possesses a wee bit of hubris. As it is, let's give Lewis a little rope and see if he manages to rope himself a universe-sized steer, or if he hangs himself. I don't want to give away the ending this close to the beginning, but I'm betting he ropes that bull.

The first town we'll visit in our journey is one we should all be familiar with: Human Nature. Lewis wisely begins with a proposition none of us could honestly disagree with: we all think there are rules that others should follow (even if we tend to let ourselves off the hook most of the time). He illustrates this by picturing two people arguing. They might say "hey, I was here first" or "I did my part, now you do yours" or even "come on, you promised." Lewis points out that the speaker isn't just saying that the other guy's behavior displeases him, but he seems to be "appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about" (3). And notice that the other guy doesn't usually respond "since when does being first matter" or "that's not how it works" or "I don't keep promises." Because, if the second guy did respond that way, we'd all call him a jerk and chastise him for not playing by the same rules the rest of us do. And by calling that second guy a jerk, we recognize that there is some sort of "rule of fair play" (4) that we're all supposed to agree on. To use an illustration that is likely to appeal to football fans, we can call a penalty on a linebacker because there is some sort of agreement about what the rules are for tackling quarterbacks (for the record: they're far too lenient. Get those pretty uniforms dirty, I say).

Lewis points out that we used to call this "rule of fair play" the "Law of Nature," not in the sense of a law like gravity or planetary motion or thermodynamics, but more like a "Law of Human Nature." The difference is that when you drop your iPhone, it has no choice but to fall to the ground and inevitably get some horrible scratches on its shiny case; you and I, however, can choose to disobey the set of rules that uniquely applies to us.

So the first question before us is this: is this "Law of (Human) Nature" universal, or peculiar to a few of us? Lewis tackles this question head-on with an illustration that was calculated to challenge his audience. Rather than referring to the Nazis as he did, I'll reproduce his question here with a little updating for modern readers:

What is the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the [terrorists] at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might have still had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair. (5)

Or in the words of everyone's favorite Welsh accented King Arthur: "Either what we hold to be right and good and true IS right and good and true, for all mankind under God, or we're just another robber tribe."

Lewis anticipates that some of his audience might have an objection. And if his audience did, I know the world of today would object to this sort of "self-righteous Moralism." He points out that some might  say that different civilizations in different periods of time define Right and Wrong differently. There is some truth in this, but these past peoples don't really have all that radically different a definition of morality. Let me ask this imaginary objector the same question Lewis does: what would an entirely different morality mean? That is, what would it mean if some group in the past had a completely different morality from us? That would mean they valued running away from a battle, or applauded abandoning your family, or admired those who were abjectly selfish. Cowardice better than courage? Irresponsibility an improvement on reliability? Hard to imagine, huh?

And while I'm burning down some strawmen, let me ask you this, Mr. Imaginary Objector: you say you don't believe there is any real, universal, morally binding law of Right and Wrong. Good, I suppose you won't object then if I take your car for a drive and don't bring it back. I could use a new car, and I thank you for your generosity.

On a more serious note, take the example Lewis does of a nation that claims to not believe in treaties (Iran springs to mind as a great example). "Treaties don't matter," say the rulers of this country, but the very next moment we find them saying that they are free to break Treaty ABC because it's not a fair treaty (6). If treaties don't matter, if Right and Wrong are just words, what does it mean for a treaty to be fair or unfair? Doesn't this nation (as well as our Imaginary Objector who would really like to keep the keys to his BMW) reveal that there really is some standard that we all are beholden to?

I'll end today's blog before it gets longer than the section it is supposed to be summarizing, but I want to leave you with one more quote from Lewis:

[W]e are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table....None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature...I am not preaching...I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. (7-8)

So let us take away two ideas: everyone, everywhere has this odd notion that there is some sort of Law that we all ought to obey. And, perhaps more importantly, we break that Law. A lot.


Next time, we look at some more detailed objections to this "Law of Nature." Until then, ponder those two ideas, and see if they ring true to you.