Webassign 3
I. The Law of Human Nature a. Everyone has heard people quarrel -people can say some important things -remarks don’t necessarily simply say that the other man’s behavior doesn’t please him -quarrelling is trying to show the other is wrong -called Law of Right and Wrong used to be called Law of Nature -man can obey or disobey -thought people knew right and wrong by nature, thus the name -considered unsound, not true -selfishness has never been admired -those who say they don’t believe in right/wrong are hypocrites -b/c if there was no right/wrong there would be no fair/unfair -forced to believe in right/wrong -none of us are really keeping the law of nature -failed to practice behavior we expect ourselves -don’t succeed in keeping Law very well -1. All humans are thought to have to behave in a certain way -2. They don’t know they actually don’t behave in this way, they know the Law of Nature, but break it II. Some Objections a. They are the foundation -we may have herd instinct, but that isn’t moral law -impulse to help and impulse to preserve oneself -Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play, instincts are the keys -moral law says to help people -we learn rule of decent behavior from those close to us -we measure moral ideas with a standard, with Real Morality III. The Reality of the Law a. Now go back -two odd things about human race (1) haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior they ought to practice, Law of Nature (2) didn’t do so -breaking Law of Nature only means we’re not perfect - Law of Nature says what we should/shouldn’t do -happiness can only come from individuals -unselfishness is one of the things decent behavior consists in -men should be unselfish -shouldn’t merely behave for our own convenience -more than one kind of reality IV. What Lies Behind the Law a. Let’s sum it up -Law of Nature may not be anything but way of speaking -A real law we didn’t invent, but know we ought to obey -Materialist view of world says it just happened, freak accident -Religious view says it was profound -Men are under a moral law, which we didn’t make -Is there a power behind universe? -Only perspective we have is Man’s -To exist, we are under a law of some kind. Essay 1 When studying world religions in readily becomes obvious that people from all around the world share some type of objective morality. For thousands of years, people from around the world didn’t even know about each other, but somehow they developed a need for some Supreme Being, or God. Nobody “told” them that there was a God, or that it was necessary to believe in some sort of higher power, but they did. People worldwide developed religions and with these newfound Faiths they grounded a set of moral codes they deemed should be followed. With minor variation, these completely different peoples figured that they should treat others like they would like to be treated, or as modern Christians call, the Golden Rule. Also, they felt that their fellow Man should be treated with respect, love, and dignity. C. S. Lewis vocalizes these observations and writes that nobody told people that they “had to be good,” or live with certain set of “accepted morals,” but people naturally do so. This seems to prove that humans have a natural inclination for goodness, and also a God. Therefore, even though people around the world may seem different, they’re really not. We consequently are in fact able to make generalized comments about people worldwide, as in the “U.N. Declaration of Human Rights,” because human nature is the same with all peoples and as Aristotle says, “there is one right plan for happiness.” When confronted with the question, “Is all morality subjective and cultural?” C.S. Lewis would respond with a resounding “no.” This also matches my own opinion. Lewis feels that the worldwide population shares a universal set of moral guidelines. Nobody “told” everyone to behave well, it is simple a natural, some would say “God given,” inclination.