PHL 201 Assignment — A Response Regarding Realism and Real Moral Law/C.S. Lewis

Another online class discussion response I thought would deem itself appropriate for the Medium archive…

“So in essence, from a personal standpoint, I’d like to start out by saying I think C.S. Lewis’ depiction of morality and law is brilliant. This is a guy who is grasping ideals from a perspective that surpasses humanity — which logically would acceptable given the fact that a creator cannot be part of its creation. A painter can’t physically be in a painting, a songwriter can’t be physically in sound or words and music, a carpenter can’t physically be in his framework or structure. Likewise, an ultimate philosopher can’t be in his philosophy, and C.S. Lewis is acknowledging this by the means of discovering, not creating, morality. This is because morality is a part of us on a universal scale and has been since the beginnings of recorded human history. We couldn’t have created it because we are a part of it. The same can be said as well in reference to the mathematics and morality example, where if a child was somehow hypothetically raised totally aloof and alone in a dessert, the absolution of 2+2=4 would not be possible to cognitively grasped — yet it will still exist even without its revelation. Likewise, realism and moral law would not be computed either in his mind, yet that too would also still exist also without revelation. Thus, it is safe to assume that by this sound logic, real moral law can be justified as absolutely, reasonably, and non-changing as mathematics.

So with this covered, as far as bad practices are concerned and the changing of them for progress’ and real moral laws’ sake — does this imply that it is all really reality? In terms of progress, yes. This can be exemplified by looking over the course of human history and by what it has taught us. One would think that this all would put up a red flag of contradictory, within the sense that if progress is just a discovery, and we are simply mere mortals discovering progress, than how could we ever simply define it? I can offer a counter through Lewis’ already covered argument of the three natural instincts during a time of crisis for an example. This is referring to the rabid dog, bear attack reasoning within the power points and the texts. The fact that the human is experiencing this from within points to a direct-tale sign that somehow the notion of progress and the questioning of its definition and/or existence can already automatically be bypassed because it is engrained in us on a visceral, un-doctured up level. And furthermore, the fact that the person knows the difference between right and wrong and yet still acts in hypocrisy and violates such given laws is even more evidence of what could be coined as self-acculizational progress. And we are covered again once more, with another red flag of “who’s to say” from the classical relativists argument. Well, if moral law was never created by man but is under constant discovery, then his opinion of it is meaningless because his opinion does not effect the totality of totalities of what was, is, and will be in terms of realism and real moral law. Because real moral law cannot be based on relativism, it can only be based off of truth. And real moral truth is as real as math — by Lewis’ artfully and tactfully exemplified expressions and standards. And relativity points out the fallacies and flaws within itself and such thinking.”

#document — J

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.