One of the most prevalent ideas in intellectual circles today is that the old is bad. Progress is vital to our survival; if we do not change, we will die. Everything that has been around for awhile must be improved. C.S. Lewis combats this idea and others in his essay “The Poison of Subjectivism.” It is true that some things require change; for example, if water goes too long without moving it becomes stagnant and dirty. However, as Lewis says, “To infer thence that whatever stands long must be unwholesome is to be the victim of metaphor. Space does not stink because it has preserved its three dimensions from the beginning.” Lewis also offers other examples of ideas that have permanence, such as math or love. Of course, progress is necessary for many ideas, or we would still have slavery in the United States, we would still have cruel child labor, and equal wages for women would be impossible. However, Lewis argues a point on which I agree: our moral standard is constant. “If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it?” This shows that true progress can only be achieved if the moral law remains unchanged. We cannot confuse stagnations with permanence.
Another point Lewis makes that I find intriguing is how false it is that “the ethical standards of different cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all”. As we saw in class yesterday, throughout history (including ancient history), ethical standards remain constant. Whether it is from the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Babylonians, Australian aborigines, medieval law, or modern American ideals, man knows that it is wrong to kill another man. It is wrong to be lazy, as we learn from Aesop (the tortoise and hare), the Bible (Prov. 10:4), and modern culture (those who make no effort to find work are looked down upon). While it is true that punishment of committing crimes against Natural Law have changed quite a bit (Old Testament Law informs the death penalty for many sins, and the death penalty for murder has been abolished in many states), the fact remains that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are instilled with a conscience; there is a Natural Law that all humans know to follow, even though we follow it poorly.
The last question is which came first: the Moral Law (and thereby, goodness) or God? If goodness (and the Law) is simply defined by God, then God did not originate with goodness; He invented goodness, and he could just be “an omnipotent fiend” who calls Himself good. On the other hand, if God commands the Law simply because it is good, then there is something higher than God; God is merely the messenger of what already existed. The only explanation is that they are one in the same. God is goodness itself. God instructs us to follow the Moral Law because it is in fact a part of Him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The importance of the fact that God is goodness cannot be overseen. Since God has been around forever, goodness has to have been around forever. I like how you said that even God follows the Moral Law, that is a very interesting point to think about.
ReplyDeleteIn your first paragraph you make the good point that just because something is unchanging that does not diminish it in any way. If we are always trying to re-write morality and change it, how can we ever become more moral. To say that I am more moral than someone else would make no sense within subjectivity because we have different standards. It is only within set moral values that we can call ourselves moral and work toward the goal of being a good person
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job of coming up with examples of Lewis' points. I also like how, at the end, you brought up the fact that God is goodness. Neither of them can be separated because they are one in the same.
ReplyDelete