The Law of (Human) Nature

I start here because the below passages struck me as terribly human and terribly profound. I do believe there is an overarching sense of Right and Wrong in the world. I believe in a universal morality that sees murder as wrong or theft as unfair, but I have never had much success in explaining why I believe this or defending it once I've tried an explanation. I have always, in arguing the point, felt like a terrible hypocrite. And there very well may be shame in doing wrong by your fellow man, but somehow it is both terrifying and comforting to know that he, too, has done wrong by his fellow man. It does not excuse the behavior, it simply reiterates what Lewis says below: this is the one law that you can willfully choose to disobey. It's the option of choice--the idea that you have made a decision to act this way--where I find such a tremendous source of hope. If I have chosen to act untoward in the past it follows, then, that I can still choose to act appropriately in the future.

from Mere Christianity (The Complete C.S. Lewis):

Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey...That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Human Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it...they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference...I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him...Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson.

It seems, then, we are forced to belive in 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 a multiplication table. Now, if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature.

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. 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 practise
ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people...I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as my arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. This point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much--we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so--that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are
breaking it, and consequently we try to shift responsibility.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, 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. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break
it. (Lewis 15-18)

But there is more to explore about this idea and its ramifications, including the logical effects and foundations of such an argument, and I do not want to say more on it now. Instead, reflect on the idea of choice. When I am doing Right I am choosing as simply as I choose when I am doing Wrong--even if I know better.

I wish I could send this book to Joe. I wish he would read it, or attempt to, if I did. It's not that I want him to read it and become a Christian. Instead, I want him to read it to understand my faith a little better. I have always wanted him to better understand my faith--I know how difficult a concept it has been for him, at times--and I think this book could really provide him some excellent insight into, well--me.

Maybe someday I will get the chance to send it to him and he will be amiable to reading it.