Unlawful

"In his book ‘Mere Christianity’, C. S. Lewis speaks about the ‘Law of Right and Wrong’ or the ‘Law of Nature’."
C. S. Lewis and the Law of Nature

I first encountered this idea from Mr. Lewis when a co-worker posted a link to a YouTube video about the topic.

Just because we use the same word, "Law" for two different concepts does not mean that those concepts have anything in common. Language is capable of expressing analogy, as well as factual similarities. It is nonsensical to refer to gravity as a law that can be disobeyed, because in this context "Law" operates as such an analogy.

I'm not convinced that C. S. Lewis has managed to go from an "Is" to an "Ought" with the reasoning presented in this video, or, for that matter in his book. The overall goal appears to be to go from observed human behavior, through a "sensus divinitatis"-type mechanism, to the idea that morality is a objective facet of reality. But what's missing in the analysis as presented is how people respond to the reactions of other people. The person who never plans to speak to someone again doesn't always bother to make excuses to that person; how can one be sure that people always feel guilt and shame when they don't have to confront anyone? My rationalizing something to a person because I feel it's in my interests to maintain some sort of relationship with them is different than my rationalizing to myself over violating a rule that I've internalized. I think the latter, which Mr. Lewis does not really address, is more important to his argument (such as it is) than the former.

Personally, I think that moral rules tend to look similar across societies because human beings are social animals, and generally speaking, moral rules on the societal level are about allowing societies to stay together. I could imagine a morality that praised fleeing from battles (that one is easy, in fact) and double-crossing others. In the latter case, I would image people who are much better equipped to survive on their own than most of are today. Freed from the need to trust others to assist them, they could do as they chose. Myth, legend and superhero comic books have explored this in depth, I believe.

Thomas Nagel has made the case that mentally sound people will perceive harms against them to be wrong, period, and not just bad outcomes for them as individuals. I disagree with him on that, just as I disagree with Mr. Lewis. I am a believer in rules, but I do not presume that rules come from anywhere other than people. I keep promises to others because I understand the rules of the game, and I expect other people to understand them, too. But I do not believe that other people are required to follow them. They make a cost/benefit analysis that I am not privy to, and if they perceive dealing with me in the spirit of our agreement to be in their best interests as they define them, they will do so.

In the end, I believe that Mr. Lewis mistakes the biological fact of human interdependence for an indicator of some universal law of moral behavior rather than a simple trait of the species. Bats can fly, not because of some universal rule that grants all bats the power to "defy" gravity, but because, as an order, Chiroptera are set up in such a way that allows for this and they thrive in doing so. Likewise, it is not somehow "wrong" for bats to swim; they simply aren't set up to live well (or for very long, perhaps) if they attempt it.

While I think that Mr. Lewis isn't far off the mark when he notes: "We have failed to practice the kind of behavior we expect from other people," I would point out that this works both ways. It doesn't take a particularly astute observer of humanity to note all of the ways in which people use each other as means to ends, rather than, as Immanuel Kant demands, ends in themselves. And even though people are aware of this, they don't always reciprocate the "bad" behavior. I fully expect, for instance, people to be inattentive on the roads. But I still pay attention. The video's implied contention that our expectations are only in line with others supporting our interests is as false as it is one-sided.

I am not sure if the maker of the video is aware of what it called the Fundamental Attribution Error, but they are incorrect in their assertion that all of us invariably make it. Some of us are more than willing to understand the reasons why others place their immediate interests above our own to be the same reasons why we place our immediate interests above theirs, and we realize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The presumption that all of humanity is populated by hypocrites is tempting, and understandable, but also, I think, false.

When I first read, "The world owes you nothing. It was here first," attributed to Mark Twain/Samuel Clements, it resonated with me. When I understood that it also applied to everyone else in the world, it was liberating. The idea that there is some objective standard of behavior that people should be held accountable to has its benefits. But so does the understanding that there is no such standard. The benefits are simply different, and people choose which set suit them better.