In Chapter 1 and 2,
C.S. Lewis explains one principle
using loosely coined terms, such as The Law of Human Nature,
the Law of Nature, and moral law
It is the Principle of Right and Wrong
Because everyone knows it by nature,
it is also The Law of Nature
Because this is unique to humans,
it is also The Law of Human Nature
Because it is about right and wrong,
it is also The Law of Morality
So these three terms
(Law of Nature = Human Nature = Morality) are interchangeable
This may be confusing as you read the first two chapters
So please make a note of this
In Chapter 3, Lewis compares these Laws
with the laws of nature
These are scientific and physical laws,
obtained through experimentation and scientific observation
This is unlike The Law of Nature from previous chapters
Chapter 3 uses 'Moral Laws' and 'The Law of Human Nature'
and not 'The Law of Nature' to mean the same thing
Mere Christianity Book 1 Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
Chapter 3: The Reality of the Law
Chapter 3 mentions 'two odd things
about the human race'
This is that all humans are held under
and pressed by the Law of Right and Wrong
He explains that people exist under the moral law
as though it is something that presses upon them
The problem is, no one
can ever claim to be impeccable
before this Law of Morality
This is the truth in Romans
‘for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ [Rom. 3:23]
‘None is righteous, no, not one’ [Rom. 3:10]
C.S. Lewis explains this passage
regarding original sin in terms of the Law of Human Nature,
also known as the Moral Law
We believe in the Law of Right and Wrong, strive to follow it in our own way,
and live under it, yet we fail to fully live by it
There cannot be a perfectly righteous life in this way
In Chapter 3, he contrasts the Law of Human Nature
or the moral law with natural laws,
or the scientific laws
In Chapter 3, C.S. Lewis uses examples
of common materials like stones, trees, and mountains
He explains that if we consider a tree,
we cannot say whether it is good or bad
“I’m just growing with the given weather and soil"
We cannot call a tree bad or good,
because it has always been there
"I’m only here by the law of gravity"
Or, a stone is just there
It is not that it ought to have been otherwise
It does not have a correct form of life
So this principle of right and wrong does not apply to laws of nature
Natural laws simply reveal and describe phenomena as they are,
based on observation,
without prescribing what ought to be done
according to the Law of Right and Wrong
This is how Lewis explains,
What we usually call the laws of nature
may not be laws in the strict sense,
but only in a manner of speaking
That is what the laws of nature do
But for The Law of Human Nature,
'It certainly does not mean what human beings do
But the Law of Human Nature tells you
what human beings ought to do'
What we ought to do and do not
Or, natural laws simply express
what is consistently happening in nature,
whereas the Law of Human Nature
does not describe what actually happens within humans,
but what ought to happen
The sense of duty, obligation, and responsibility
that inherently applies to human beings
It means that one should not
(Misinterpretations of the Moral Law) explain the Moral Law
based on self-centered criteria,
focusing only on inconvenience of benefits
Some inconvenience isn’t necessarily blameworthy
For example, if someone boards the train before me
and takes the window seat I wanted,
that has nothing to do with the Law of Human Nature
Not getting the seat I wanted is inconvenient for me,
but it’s not their fault
It's just their choice (Nothing to blame)
Conversely, some actions may benefit oneself
but still violate the Moral Law and be blameworthy
For example, if an enemy soldier
betrays their side by giving us information
that leads to our victory,
From our side, it may seem beneficial,
but it’s a betrayal to the other side,
betraying one’s own for personal gain,
inviting condemnation from their own people
All of this means that the Law of Human Nature
cannot be explained based on self-centered notions
of personal benefit or inconvenience
Nor can this law be explained as striving to act rightly
for the sake of one’s own safety and happiness
This is a very tricky part
Following God’s Word can sometimes
bring us safety and happiness
But the same obedience can also
lead to suffering and being sacrificed
Therefore, the Law of Right and Wrong
is not a law that ensures
our happiness simply by following it
Lewis makes sure that he is not talking
about a law we should pursue merely for safe living
on this earth
Then, what is the the moral law or Law of Human Nature?
First, he clearly explains what it is not
the Law of Human Nature is
not a description of how humans behave
It is not an explanation of nature, as natural laws explain nature.
Nor is it something we pursue for our own convenience, safety, or happiness
So what is the Law of Human Nature?
It is something that we did not create, yet it exists
It is a law that, though not created by humans,
exists above us,
pressing upon us and demanding that we follow it
That is the moral law, or The Law of Human Nature
The right and wrong that all humans possess
is not something instilled through ideology or education,
but exists inherently within everyone, and we live under it
It awakens our conscience and
presses upon us to live as we ought
This is The Law of Human Nature
Mere Christianity Book 1 Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
Chapter 4 What Lies Behind the Law
So where did this law come from?
What lies behind the law
and who has provided humans with this law?
These are some questions that follow
Humans did not create this,
(Who created moral laws?) but this law exists, pressing on humans
This leads to the logical conclusion
that it must have been created by
a being outside, above, and beyond humanity
So in Chapter 4, Lewis explains
what lies behind the law
What is the universe,
and what is its origin?
What is the origin of human existence?
This is what Lewis addresses
He provides two views
(Who created the universe?) One is The Materialistic View
This view holds that matter and space came about by chance
Its examples are the theories of evolution and the Big Bang
The theory of evolution does not clearly explain the origin of the universe
Its explanation
is ambiguous (Life began through random chemical reaction)
And it substitutes this with an explanation
(Evolution into higher organisms) that life developed over time
The idea that all things have developed over long ages
cannot sufficiently explain the origins of life and the universe
Now, the second view
is The Religious View, which holds
that there is a Creator behind the universe
with perfect wisdom and almighty power,
who created the universe with a specific purpose
The Bible says,
‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.’ [Gen. 1:1]
This clearly explains the origin
(What created the universe?) Which is more correct?
Materialistic or Religious,
which view is more correct?
A scientific perspective cannot determine which is correct,
because science requires experiments,
which can only be conducted by observing
how things are formed and how they move
Science can never provide an answer about the being
behind these moving things
or the existence behind this law
(Religious View) If there is a being behind this law,
it would either remain entirely unknown to humans or, if known,
would be revealed in a way fundamentally different from science
Even if all natural laws, scientific laws and human discoveries
could explain the order of operation, they still cannot answer
the questions of 'Why', the purpose behind them
[The Limits of Science] Therefore, while science can explain
how the universe exists
and describe the phenomena that occur,
it cannot provide answers to why it exists
or for what purpose it exists
But in this difficult situation, there is a way out
[The Only Clue to the Origin] There is only one entity in the universe
that can provide answers to these questions that science cannot
It is humanity itself
Humans possess a kind of inside knowledge
Humans feel and live under
The Law of Human Nature or moral law that they did not create
Because we live with this law within us,
The Law of Human Nature within us
becomes the only clue to understanding
the nature of the being behind it
In that sense, in the title of Book 1,
‘Right and Wrong' (moral law) is the Key to Unlocking
the Meaning of the Universe (Humanity)
Lewis claims, 'The only packet I am allowed to open is Man'
Through scientific methods and the material observations
we can't know what is behind the universe
By examining The Law of Human Nature within ourselves,
we recognize a Creator who established this law
who not only designed a universe governed by
natural and scientific laws
but also instilled within humanity
the Moral Law, or The Law of Human Nature,
placing it at the heart of existence
There is a being behind the universe, who created and governs it
This being instills within humanity the drive to do what is right,
pressing upon us to follow the Moral Law
or the Law of Human Nature, making us
feel discomfort and a sense of responsibility
Thus, this manifests as a guiding law
In Chapter 5, Lewis discusses
the unease that arises when this law operates within us
and how, with the ‘Law of Human Nature,’
humanity can come to know the One who established this law
Chapter 3 The Reality of the Law
Differences between Natural Law and the Law of Human Nature
Natural Law (e.g., stone, tree)
Not an actual law, but a mode of expression
Describes what actually happens
2) Law of Human Nature (e.g., responsibility, duty)
Not a description of how people behave
Something that truly exists
Chapter 4: What Lies Behind the Law
1. Perspectives on the Universe
1) Materialistic View (No personal being behind the universe)
Evolution, Big Bang Theory
2) Religious View (A personal being behind the universe)
Creationism, God
2. Methods for Finding What’s Behind the Universe
1) Science: Explains natural phenomena in the universe
Cannot explain why the universe exists
2) Humanity: The key to unlocking the meaning of the universe