C.S. Lewis's Law of Human Nature - Response

Response to http://www.btinternet.com/~a.ghinn/lawof.htm


1/30/2008
Cognitive Thought

In C.S. Lewis’s “The Law of Human Nature” he describes our attributes or characteristics as being our nature. However, we as humans are capable of cognitive reasoning. In my opinion, the opposite of nature is thought. Nature does not think, it does not reason, and it cannot lie or deceive. The only thing that separates us as humans from animals is our ability to reason and communicate.

I refuse to define the law of Human Nature. This is analogous to asking me to explain plant intelligence. No such thing exists in my opinion. I would then proceed to pour my thoughts onto paper in the form of a long drawn out essay explaining why I don’t believe plants have the ability to reason. However, I could describe the nature of plants, and our ability to use logic as humans.

C.S. Lewis’ provides no real reasoning or evidence to back up his claims, and therefore calls what he is describing “nature”. He basically blabbers on for three pages about ethics and how people in general do not adhere to their own moral beliefs unless it benefits them personally. He defines his so-called “law” by calling people lying, selfish asshats.

In my opinion, C.S. Lewis is a marvelous fiction writer but not a very able philosopher. He’s basically calling ethics “human nature”. He’s creating a new paradigm to describe something that has already been described. It’s circular logic. He finishes off his essay with this long spill about how he and the rest of society do not stick to their own moral beliefs. However, when an adversary is not “fair”, most people, who are not themselves “fair”, will criticize that entity for being unfair or immoral. This act, according to Lewis, is human nature.

Unfortunately for Lewis, humans do not have a nature; we are capable of thought and reason, deception, loving and hating, and the list could go on... The Law of Human Nature could be Lewis’s long and overcomplicated way of explaining that he believes humans are knowingly immoral. He uses those four words so often in his essay though, that they could just be synonymous to ethics or morals.