Lewis on judgement

Lewis on judgement

Brief Summary of the Content

Lewis asserts that when people have a form of disagreement, the general expectation appeal for both parties for a standard behavior to apply. According to him, judging whether a person is right or wrong is the human law of nature. Moreover, he reckons that human law is peculiar to humans. However, the only distinguishing factor is that humans choose whether or not to obey the law, which applies exclusively to them.  Primarily, the law of nature emphasizes on decent behavior. Therefore an assumption exists that people are naturally conversant with their articulations. Lewis concurs with this postulation, arguing that whereas humans tend to have different levels of morality and civilization, it has never really been a total difference. Therefore, the author believes the laws of human nature apply distinctly for every society, although the standard expectations of right and wrong are identical.

Every person has an innate knowledge of decent behavior. Whenever a person breaks the human laws of nature, they tend to deny they have done it profusely. Lewis attributes this reaction as evidence that the laws indeed exist. Lewis attributes this reaction as evidence that every person has an innate knowledge of decent behavior. The author asserts that “human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not behave in that way” (2001). He argues that these two facts form the basis of thought in understanding human nature and its surroundings. The author believes that not practicing the components of the law of nature is odd for humans. However, he concedes that when dealing with human beings, it becomes more a question of more than just the facts of what to do and what not to do. Therefore, the author believes that following the social rules is entirely a choice individuals make every single day.

Lewis (2001) concedes that people have unique ideas regarding the standard form of the expected natural behavior. However, the author asserts that humans are bound to think about these differences, which eventually prove that human law on natural behavior exists after all. Also, he reckons that it is essential to distinguish between morality and belief about facts. Of the two, Lewis (2001) argues that when people are sure about a particular direction, they are bound to base their morality on facts available to them. As such, the author believes that while there could be dissimilarities on the expectations regarding the rule of human nature, further reflections and experiences show the law exists.

Lewis (2001) asserts that questioning the validity of the human law of nature is not an attempt to demystify the religious aspects of Christianity. One finds out more about God through the moral law compared to what the universe teaches. Also, the Supreme Being is “intensely interested in right conduct — in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness” (Lewis, 2001). Therefore, the author proposes that society needs to desist from thinking about moral law in connection with religion. He argues that humans need to face the facts of life, and then explore the views Christianity aims to answer regarding those facts. Overall, the author asserts that the moral law is a distinct form of religion but implies that Christianity answers any questions on the reality of life.

Personal Reflection on the Chapter

Lewis is guilty of over-hyping the ability of Christianity as a religion to explain the moral law. I agree with him that the Supreme Being is intensely interested in fairness, justice, kindness, honesty, and love; I also believe that the people. However, I also hold the belief that the interpretation of this high Deity is different in different civilizations. Therefore, I find it erroneous to suggest that Christianity offers a comprehensive answer to the questions of life. I reason that the Christian religion, like many of its contemporaries, proposes a uniform view of the moral law and everything it encompasses. In effect, using it to answer the most salient questions of life forces individuals to think in a specific direction. While I accept aligning different thoughts is necessary when deliberating about the law of human nature, I’m afraid I have to disagree that the view should be narrow. Therefore, incorporating religion in answering the moral law dilutes the ability of the question to provoke constructive thoughts on the subject.

After reading Lewis’ text, I feel that he places too much emphasis on religious doctrines to explore the human nature law. First, I believe that finding the real purpose of the moral law should be a process that encourages people to think broadly to incorporate different cultures and reasoning. Linking Christianity and religion in general to explaining the concept of morality was a bit out of place. While it makes sense in some quarters, given explicitly that religion tries to explain the person of God and his values, his suggestion is not comprehensive enough. First, I think the majority of Christian institutions have long lost the moral high ground in global affairs. For example, the priests in the Catholic Church have had to battle severe accusations of defiling minors in the past. Therefore, I find it ironic to use Christianity to explain the moral law given the indiscretions committed by Christians and their institutions.

Similarly, I agree with Lewis that the law of nature, as it is known to men, is sound and consistent. I reckon that the moral teachings of Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and the like are the same, despite apparent differences in civilization and culture. Therefore, I concur with him that some traits in humans are universally unacceptable, while there are those that society holds in high regard. For example, nearly every culture in the world upholds selflessness. It does not matter their religion, their culture, or geographical location. It is clear, though, that the acceptable rules on morality are standard for every people.

Moreover, the Supreme Being has common attributes across all religions and cultures. Therefore, Lewis’ assertion that the laws of morality are implanted in people since when they are young is congruent with my views on morality.

Conclusion

In summary, ways of interpreting the laws of human nature apply differently in every society even though the standard expectations of right and wrong are identical. Every person has an innate knowledge of the laws of human life and the expected behavior. Similarly, the laws of life, as it is known in men, is sound and consistent. However, Lewis places too much emphasis on religious doctrines to explore the human nature law. I believe people should adopt a broad perspective when seeking answers to the social act of nature.