I apologize for not blogging the past few weeks and promise to be more consistent as I learn the great virtue of time management. I left with what some might say is a depressing blog last time. I wrote about how I saw the world as a distortion of what it was meant to be and how the world had much evil in it.
The next logical question is how are we meant to decide what is good and what is evil? Many would say we instinctually know what is good and what is evil. I will write about what is called the Law of Morality. I promise I will not quote C.S. Lewis every blog but it is from his book Abolition of Man in which I will be referencing.
Lewis spent much of his life as an atheist, then as a theist and finally as a Christian in which his works are best known. Lewis laid claim to this Law of Morality and wrote about how every person instinctually knows this law but breaks it anyway. Lewis contended that human beings have not created new morals, per se, but that in such things as the Age of Enlightenment humans were just tinkering and changing pre-existing morals.
To paraphrase, Lewis states that this knowledge of good and evil has to be given by a higher being because it is meant for human beings to obey something or someone. He states that it is obvious that this higher being cares about love, faithfulness, goodness, etc.
When we look at major religions throughout the world we see many similarities. In the Appendix of Abolition of Man lies Illustrations of the Tao, which is meant to show examples of the law of morality within different cultures. It is divided into eight categories including: The Law of General Beneficence, The Law of Justice, and The Law of Mercy, to name a few. To show an example of this I will use the first law of General Beneficence in regards to murder:
'I have not slain men.' (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, 'Book of the Dead', v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [= ERE], vol. v, p. 478)
'Do not murder.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)
'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw... murderers.' (Old Norse. Volospá 38, 39)
'He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.' (Hindu. Laws of Manu. Janet, Histoire de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6)
This is just one example of the similarities of societies throughout history with regards to expression of the significance of specific morals. I will make sure to post the link so that you can see other examples as well.
The question remains, why do these religions share these things in common even though they were written in different geographical locations and hundreds to thousands of years apart? Why do the Buddha and Jesus Christ both stress the importance of “The Golden Rule?” Why do they share similar morals? Why does our society view certain things as good and evil? If morals are man-made and relative to each individual how do we have a clear basis for any set of standard and consistent morals? If this was to be the case, how would we judge the Holocaust to be good or bad?
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm
