Monday, January 17, 2011

The Poison of Subjectivism

Lewis talks about the premise that people are questioning their own values and how they perceive right and wrong  - "his own reason has become the object: it is as if we took out our eyes to look at them."  The "modern" view is that our judgements are conditioned by our environment, and each environment or culture is different from each other.  Lewis argues we cannot invent a new value apart from the traditional values and every attempt to do so results in emphasizing only one part of traditional value.  For example, the "Aristocratic Ethic" only has class as the only criteria. These reformers would be taking down themselves if they try to take down traditional values because " the trunk to whose root the reformer would lay the axe is the only support of the particular branch he wishes to retain."

So, Lewis continues, we must either accept traditional morality as legitimate without needing support or totally reject it as part of our emotions.  He brings up the possible arguments that a constant moral law prevents us from progressing and traditional morality is different for all societies.  Against the first he says just because something is old does not mean it is wrong: "The square on the hypotenuse has not gone moldy by continuing to equal the sum of the squares  on the two other sides."  In fact, unless there is a constant standard, progress is not possible because there is nothing to compare it to.  But, he argues our ideas of good may improve, but that is different from innovation where, like Nietzcsche, we throw away traditional moral laws and "can find no ground for any value judgements at all."   "Real moral advances" can only be made within the realm of the traditional values.  Lewis then argues we must have a common moral law across cultures and societies, which is much like his argument in the first part of Mere Christianity - "Right and Wrong as a Clue...." 

A part I was slightly confused about was Lewis talking about innovation.  He says previously that you can't have a new set of values apart from the traditional ones, the common moral law, and yet he introduces Nietzcshe which seems to apart from it.

In class, we discussed the idea that "real moral advances, in fine, are made from within the existing moral tradition and in the spirit of that tradition and can be understood only in the light of that tradition.  The outsider who has rejected the tradition cannot judge them."  We talked about how different cultures have different standards and need to respect them like it says in 1 Corinthians 8 so we do not cause our brothers to stumble.  We also talked about we need to be careful about how we tell people from other cultures about their sin because it may turn them away from Christ or cause other sin.  One way we can do this is by living out your faith, your standard, and others can see, which may produce better results than trying to preach to them.

I'm no way sure if I understand Lewis when he talks about God and His relation to the moral.  He says we are finite beings and when we think about the law, it is only in terms of making it or obeying it, but those categories may be wrong.  Lewis says that God "neither obeys nor creates the moral law." He reasons that if God "commands them because they are right" than God is "the mere executor of a law somehow external and antecedent to His own being."  If He made the law, then God would just be an "omnipotent fiend" that does whatever He wants on a whim and there is no meaning to goodness.  Lewis argues that Goodness can't have been created; it is not dependent on other things.  God is goodness and goodness is God. 

The conclusion I draw is that since God is goodness, He is the law.  Goodness is part of God's character and He can't act in any other way, which is the standard for the law. To me, I don't really have an theological objections to God doing whatever He wants because after all He is God, and also He is goodness.  So whatever He does will be in line with His character, and that is goodness.  Unless that is Lewis's point?

 Lewis closes his argument against subjectivism with this statement: "But give me a man who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job."  He is talking about qualities of a ruler or leader.  Instead of the qualities that are in fashion such as "vision", "dynamism," and "creativity", he would rather have someone who has virtue, diligence, knowledge and skill.  A person who is faithful.  I'm not sure what Lewis is intending to do by relating his argument to the political realm, but these standards can be applied to every person.  Are we faithful in all we do?  Perhaps going along with his position that "we perish" if we don't follow the common moral law, each person must hold to this standard in all walks and parts of life or else all areas of our society will fall apart.  And I think I agree with Lewis on this.

1 comment: