Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[Thinker_Doer]

If I obtained my food by burglarizing your entire pantry and refrigerator while you were away, would that be wrong of me to do? Or are you cool with it because moral nature isn’t uniform, and I consider my morals are different from yours?

As usual… it depends! If you are about the starve to death, it would be acceptable. In the stone age (and even today in certain “primitive” tribes), there was no concept of property, everyone was a co-owner. Today it is different. Just because there is no uniform moral code, it does not mean that everyone should accept any moral code.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

You’re twisting this quite a bit, cutting out all nuance, as if people weren’t aware of this.

Am I? Details, please.

Lewis explains that people are always making excuses to justify their bad behavior. The false narrative that I referred to was people who are trying to justify their bad parenting, bad teaching, or bad caregiving to children by claiming that children are just born rotten.

And this means that there is no uniform moral code, because that would include to be honest about it. Honesty is part of morality.

Logic has to be learned. Math has to be learned. Just because something has to be learned doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

No one argued that there is an inborn knowledge of math or logic. Actually, there isn’t. Some people are unable to comprehend the concept of “three” or higher numbers. For them there is only “one”, “two” and “many”.

That would mean that all those people wanting to ban gay marriage or abortion are equally as right as those that want to allow it - many atheists I know would be loathe to admit that. Even in your own post you bring up white supremacists hating based on skin pigmentation, with the implication that this is wrong. But, if there truly are no moral absolutes, you’d have to admit that they are no less right than those advocating for equality.

It is wrong from my point of view. From theirs it is hunky-dory. And there is no epistemological method to separate the validity of one ethical system from another. Now we examine if one ethical system is more useful than another one, but that would lead into the utilitarian system, and I suspect that you are not amenable to that.

You also mention on how the negative phrasing of the golden rule is more right that the positive phrasing.

It is better, because it is not possible to TWIST it. It is not morally better, it is epistemologically superior. It is a frequent error to confuse the different branches of philosophy. Ethics is different from epistemology. Ethics is subjective.

That was already a known part of the law and the prophets.

The law and the prophets had nothing to do with it. The several versions of the golden rule have been with us since the beginning.

Not necessarily. As I said upthread, people are always trying to justify their bad behavior.

Which means that there is NO universal moral code to be honest.

 

[TULIPed]

and strange that Jesus did not realize it.

Indeed. Who in their right mind would follow such a fellow? Can’t even get the golden rule right. Gees Louise.

 

[Zach]

Just because certain people won’t or can’t use their reason to identify the universal moral code doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Even an atheist can, and in fact do (George Will for example), discern universals law, universal rights, and universal moral code. Because of our limitations Biblical revelation helps our reasoning to see the truth by the word of God.

 

[TULIPed]

In the stone age (and even today in certain “primitive” tribes), there was no concept of property, everyone was a co-owner.

This is patently false. If it were true, there’d be no need for a caveman lawyer, which - as everyone knows - were a necessity. We know this from all the old stone age legal pads we found lying around underneath (oddly enough) the Capitol building in D.C. (From what we can decipher from their writing, cavemen sat around, argued with each other, spent a TON of money and did absolutely nothing.)

 

[blackforest]

Actually there are probably a great number of people and groups that would find such a system preferable. So to infer that such a system is universally rejected is a false premise.

Which culture condones stealing food from others as morally acceptable?

Ours is a system that’s acceded to by the majority for obvious self-beneficial reasons, but that doesn’t necessarily raise it to the level of a moral imperative.

If the majority approves of locking migrant children in cages and separating them indefinitely from their parents, are there any moral grounds for the minority to object? Or is this left to popular vote?

As usual… it depends! If you are about the starve to death, it would be acceptable. In the stone age (and even today in certain “primitive” tribes), there was no concept of property, everyone was a co-owner. Today it is different. Just because there is no uniform moral code, it does not mean that everyone should accept any moral code.

But what’s missing from your argument is the issue of mutual consent. I’m assuming that you don’t consent to anybody breaking, entering, and robbing your food supply. I’m also assuming that you’ll reach for your phone, call 911, and feel a sense of moral outrage.

Societies that share food with each other already have a system to mutual consent in place. The society will have other standards of boundary violations. But the ultimate point is that violating an established boundary is wrong.

Remember, cultural differences and preferences do not in and of themselves preclude - and certainly are not sufficient evidence of - any lack of universal morality.

Which means that there is NO universal moral code to be honest.

It’s been about 20 years since I’ve read Mere Christianity, so it may have been a different book in which Lewis provides evidence to the contrary. (Click on the image for better readability).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SPBlitz]

It is wrong from my point of view. From theirs it is hunky-dory.

But then why do you believe it’s wrong from your point of view? If there truly are no moral absolutes, then when you say it’s ‘wrong’ you aren’t really saying anything about it, and you’d have to admit that there’s no more truth in the belief that everyone should be treated equal as the belief that white people are inherently better than everyone else. Are you really ready to bite that bullet?

 

[SPBlitz]

No one argued that there is an inborn knowledge of math or logic. Actually, there isn’t. Some people are unable to comprehend the concept of “three” or higher numbers. For them there is only “one”, “two” and “many”.

But we do (or at least most of us) have the innate capacity to understand math and logic? The fact that it has to be taught doesn’t negate their truth value. My argument isn’t so much that morality has to be innate, but that the fact that morality has to be taught does not in and of itself prove that it doesn’t exist.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

But what’s missing from your argument is the issue of mutual consent.

I agree. If I would see a starving person taking my food, while I was away, they would get my consent retroactively. So any sex with mutual consent is fine. Are you OK with that?

Remember, cultural differences and preferences do not in and of themselves preclude - and certainly are not sufficient evidence of - any lack of universal morality.

Why not?

But then why do you believe it’s wrong from your point of view?

Because I have a different ethical system. Remember that there are many ethical systems, form the “divine command theory”, all the way to the “utilitarian theory”.

My argument isn’t so much that morality has to be innate, but that the fact that morality has to be taught does not in and of itself prove that it doesn’t exist.

It is not “absolute”. Absolute would mean that it is applicable everywhere and every time. And we know that cannibalism (for example) is not considered immoral in extreme circumstances (Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors - Wikipedia). In other words, morality is relative to the circumstances.

 

[SPBlitz]

Because I have a different ethical system. Remember that there are many ethical systems, form the “divine command theory”, all the way to the “utilitarian theory”.

You didn’t quite answer my question. Alright, so then why did you choose your current ethical system over the myriad of others? Surely it’s because you believe that your system is in some way ‘better’ or more accurate then the others? If so, then you really are measuring your system to a standard - to some objective system. If not, then you’d have to admit that your ethical system has no more truth than a racists or a rapists. So again, are you really ready to bite that bullet?

 

[blackforest]

I agree. If I would see a starving person taking my food, while I was away, they would get my consent retroactively. So any sex with mutual consent is fine. Are you OK with that?

From the standpoint of my faith and personal values, no. From the standpoint of how laws should be made, yes. In many cases, provided that no fundamental human rights are being violated, I’m OK with laws accommodating a pluralistic society.

Why not?

I just illustrated if for you. While cultures may set different boundaries, (when taking food is consented upon versus stealing), all cultures see a boundary violation as a bad and wrong thing.

Let’s look at a more universal boundary violation. Can you name one culture that would find it morally acceptable for invaders to come in and kill all of their women and children?

If so, should they be able to continue to operate this way under civil law?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

You didn’t quite answer my question. Alright, so then why did you choose your current ethical system over the myriad of others? Surely it’s because you believe that your system is in some way ‘better’ or more accurate then the others?

I was brought up with it.

If so, then you really are measuring your system to a standard - to some objective system. If not, then you’d have to admit that your ethical system has no more truth than a racists or a rapists. So again, are you really ready to bite that bullet?

I do have an objective argument for it. But it is also relative. (Remember: “objective” - “subjective” is not the same as “absolute” - “relative”) I consider it better, because it gives more opportunity to everyone to live their lives according to their preferences. Now, you might object and ask, why do I prefer more freedom? Yes, it is also personal. People in other places have a different value system. In Singapore people prefer stability over freedom. They are willing to lose some freedom, having more of a “police state”.

As long as their preference system does not impede on mine, we can all coexist.

But I need to object to this proposition of yours: “you’d have to admit that your ethical system has no more truth than a racists or a rapists”. The word “truth” is not applicable here. An ethical system is not “true” or “false”, it is better or not, based upon a subjective value system.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Let’s look at a more universal boundary violation. Can you name one culture that would find it morally acceptable for invaders to come in and kill all of their women and children?

What did the Bible say? In Numbers 31:17-18? There is your answer.

And that is a very strong proposition. There are many cultures where public nudity and publicly performed sex is totally acceptable.

 

[blackforest]

Numbers 31:17-18

That’s a command from Moses, not God.

An ethical system is not “true” or “false”, it is better or not, based upon a subjective value system.

In this case, you need to just sit back and take it when an unjust law is passed. Don’t like Alabama’s abortion law? Too bad. Society spoke. You have no moral foundation on which to protest.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

That’s a command from Moses, not God.

Contrary to God’s will? But it does not matter. You asked for an example, and I provided one. As long as you (the church) cannot or does not issue a “Catholic annotated Bible”, I am free to interpret any verse as I see fit.

In this case, you need to just sit back and take it when an unjust law is passed. Don’t like Alabama’s abortion law? Too bad. Society spoke. You have no moral foundation on which to protest.

Why not? Have you never heard of civil disobedience? And peaceful petition to redress our grievances? And I am not interested in “moral” foundation. I am part of the opposition this SUGGESTED law and will do everything LEGAL to prevent it from becoming a real law. The possibilities are encouraging.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The law and the prophets had nothing to do with it. The several versions of the golden rule have been with us since the beginning.

These two sentences contradict each other.

Which means that there is NO universal moral code to be honest.

I don’t think you’re following me. Let me try to clarify.

Lewis is saying that people tend to justify their “bad” behavior, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no innate moral code. The reason being, when people justify the bad behavior that they do to other people (the same bad behavior that they don’t want anyone doing to them) it’s because they have learned that behavior out of self preservation. It’s a learned behavior not an innate one.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Lewis is saying that people tend to justify their “bad” behavior, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no innate moral code. The reason being, when people justify the bad behavior that they do to other people (the same bad behavior that they don’t want anyone doing to them) it’s because they have learned that behavior out of self preservation. It’s a learned behavior not an innate one.

That is exactly what I was talking about. So there is no innate morality, it is all learned.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t know how you come to that conclusion. How did you?

 

[SPBlitz]

It is not “absolute”. Absolute would mean that it is applicable everywhere and every time. And we know that cannibalism (for example) is not considered immoral in extreme circumstances (Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors - Wikipedia). In other words, morality is relative to the circumstances.

I don’t see how this proves there is no objective morality. To me, all it shows is that there may be many factors that have to be taken into account when determining what the moral choice in any given scenario may be. Stealing is wrong, unless you are stealing to save yourself from starvation. This isn’t two different ethical systems or a ‘subjective’ morality. This is two different scenarios in one objective morality.

I do have an objective argument for it.

Wait, I thought this whole thing was how there is not objective morality. Then how can you have an argument for one.

The problem is that you’re using the word ‘subjective’ in two ways. If all you mean when you say that morality is subjective is that the moral choice might change with a given scenario (like my example above) then I agree with you. If you mean that the moral choice depends upon the person, or the person’s beliefs, then I disagree. A white supremacist’s beliefs are objectively false, regardless of if he believes differently and regardless of his moral system.

I consider it better, because it gives more opportunity to everyone to live their lives according to their preferences.

Is this statement not an objective one - that everyone’s moral system should not infringe on anyone else’s regardless of if they believe differently. And if someone’s moral system does infringe on another’s, then that would be morally wrong.

But I need to object to this proposition of yours: “you’d have to admit that your ethical system has no more truth than a racists or a rapists”. The word “truth” is not applicable here. An ethical system is not “true” or “false”, it is better or not, based upon a subjective value system.

You say that there is not ‘true’ or ‘false’ and instead that it’s ‘better’ or ‘worse’, but you’re using them with the same meaning. You say that one system is ‘better’, but surely that means that it’s more true - in that it more closely approximates the true objective standard? If not, how can you measure which system is better? You could argue that its based upon one’s value system, but this doesn’t solve the problem, it just pushes it a step back, for how does one determine which value system is ‘better’ than someone elses?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Wait, I thought this whole thing was how there is not objective morality. Then how can you have an argument for one.

You are mistaken. I am arguing against absolute morality, not against objective one. Remember “absolute” vs. “relative” is NOT the same as “objective” vs “subjective”.

You say that there is not ‘true’ or ‘false’ and instead that it’s ‘better’ or ‘worse’, but you’re using them with the same meaning. You say that one system is ‘better’, but surely that means that it’s more true - in that it more closely approximates the true objective standard?

No, it does not mean anything of that kind.

If not, how can you measure which system is better? You could argue that its based upon one’s value system, but this doesn’t solve the problem, it just pushes it a step back, for how does one determine which value system is ‘better’ than someone elses?

By using a utilitarian approach, which is MY meta-ethical system. For someone else, who prefers (see the word!) a different meta-ethical system, the “solution” is different. If one subscribes to the “divine command theory”, then Numbers 31:17-18 is a sufficient foundation to keep the girls as sex-slaves, and kill all the boys.

Just to repeat: there are all sorts of ethical systems, and people accept different ones. That is why the same act under the same circumstances is “morally” good for some and morally bad for someone else.

Our difference was described in this proposition of yours: “but surely that means that it’s more true - in that it more closely approximates the true objective standard”, and my answer is a resounding NO. In a sense “ethics” is just like “aesthetics” - “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”, or even a culinary proposition: “a roast duck is better than a tasteless vegetable soup”.