The Reality of the Moral Law by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 2, Mere Christianity Chapter 3)

This talk became Chapter 3 of Lewis' book 'Mere Christianity' and was called 'The Reality of the [universal] Moral Law'.
You can find the book here: www.amazon.com/...
Some helps:
(7:22) "You are saying what is true". Unselfishness means looking after the good of others in society. So when you say "Because it (unselfishness) is good for society" you are essentially saying in reply to the question, "Because unselfishness is unselfishness", which is true but not an explanation as to why we ought to be unselfish. Definition is not explanation, and 'what' is not 'why'.
Lewis talks about this issue extensively in ‘The Abolition of Man’ with one example - in the case of war for a good cause:
“...Let us continue to use the previous example [from Chapter 1] -that of death for a good cause-not, of course, because virtue is the only value or martyrdom the only virtue, but because this is the experimentum crucis [crucial experiment] which shows different systems of thought in the clearest light.
Let us suppose that an innovator in values [i.e. the man trying to create a new and improved morality] regards dulce et decorum [‘it is a sweet and seemly things to die defending one’s country’] and ‘greater love hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13) as mere irrational sentiments which are to be stripped off in order that we may get down to the ‘realistic’ or ‘basic’ ground of this value. Where will he find such a ground?
First of all, he might say that the real value lay in the utility of such sacrifice to the community. ‘Good’, he might say, ‘means what is useful to the community.’ But of course the death of the community is not useful to the community-only the death of some of its members. What is really meant is that the death of some men is useful to other men. That is very true. But on what ground are some men being asked to die for the benefit of others? Every appeal to pride, honour, shame, or love is excluded by hypothesis. To use these would be to return to sentiment and the Innovator’s task is, having cut all that away, to explain to men, in terms of pure reasoning, why they will be well advised to die that others may live. He may say ‘Unless some of us risk death all of us are certain to die.’ But that will be true only in a limited number of cases; and even when it is true it provokes the very reasonable counter question ‘Why should I be one of those who take the risk?’...” (The Abolition of Man, Chapter 2, The Way).
The 1941 BBC Talks were described and ordered differently to the book made of the talks called ‘Mere Christianity’. Here is the original titles and order from the 1941 Radio Times Magazines:
Series Title: ‘Right and Wrong’ - A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe?
Talk 1 - Common Decency (Chapter 1. The Law of Human Nature), 6 August 1941.
Talk 2 - Scientific Law and Moral Law (Chapter 3. The Reality of the Law), 13 August 1941.
Talk 3 - Materialism or Religion (Chapter 4. What Lies Behind the Law), 20 August 1941.
Talk 4 - What do we do about it? (Chapter 5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy), 27 August 1941.
Talk 5 - Listener’s Questions (Chapter 2. Some Objections), 3 September 1941.

[@Sheild401]

C.S Lewis would've been proud of the way you illustrate his writings. Well done.

[@highwaygroup2821]

I always thought moral law is totally relative and has no common reference but this is eye-opening. thanks so so much...

[@alanlightner1159]

This teaching blows a hole right through those who claim “truth is relative”!

[@K1370]

C.S. Lewis is a genius by the grace of God :) thank you for posting this! This is brilliant work :)

[@angelachristine13]

I absolutely love all of these living drawings you create. I return to them quite frequently to help me let sink in Lewis' works. Thank you so very much for you talent & desire to make his words come to life. Bless you !!!!!

[@briankelly5828]

Excellent work - should be shown in every Sixth Form Ethics class.

[@DorothyAladenika]

This is simply FANTASTIC!! Well done. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Lots of great points to ponder over.

[@johnmisenheimer7443]

Thank you for creating such a great resource for others to enjoy and ponder on!

[@godsgospelgirl]

I love C.S. Lewis. These are wonderful little digestible bits of his books.

[@rodthiessen5434]

The doodles reinforce the text.... and I've always found the text highly worthwhile

[@marabierto2]

There you have it, you can not escape from this law. You can ignore it, but there it is pointing at your sins.

[@Hellyers]

Literally just read that chapter... great to see it as a doodle now too :)

[@phantom20071]

Delightfully brilliant as well as truthful.

[@bernardjackson4974]

wow @8:35- light bulb went off , im getting this slow but surle Thank you J E s u s!

[@judge1609]

Illuminating, literally!

[@ruffruff3590]

Bless you sir, a welcome aid to easter week

[@antoniofiammelli1792]

Sir thank you for all your effort on your video brilliant helps me see the world better than Hollywood , I call this brutal truth at the end it ain't brutal , up to us to love the lie and suffer the consequences or accept the truth it difficult but builds character plus maturity amen

[@TheSqueakgirl]

This is awesome as usual! Thank you!!

[@kindermord]

Thank you for this. A new look at an old favourite.

[@JoshuaHults]

Well done again. And yes people try to get around oughts by hiding an ought in their supposed workaround.

[@twelvedozen5075]

Well done. Love the artwork!

[@jakemanthuruthil1654]

You do a great job....I love all your videos

[@crabbylobster4411]

as usual, another great video! thanks for this.

[@esauponce9759]

Absolutely amazing!

[@javipdr19]

Good work! I love these videos!

[@BibleIntelligence]

Brilliant Video like always!

[@vierstorm]

Great video well put together

[@shinigamimiroku3723]

I was just thinking, that people reacting to the first talk by talking about blame is as much telling about the fact that we know the Moral Law and at the same time don't keep it - and that we deserve whatever comeuppance that is due such disregard.

[@geffestime5238]

Fantastic!

[@nahumkhokhar3441]

Self note: 7:20

[@blablabubles]

brilliant

[@Thomasfboyle]

Thanks!

[@capten246]

Awesome!

[@frekosuava]

boomerang in the back of the head.....classic.

[@rajkopre8433]

why this video is not related to my syllabus !!!(>_

[@skyslasher6267]

Where is the second chapter?

[@CSLewisDoodle]

In the radio series "Talk 5 - Listener’s Questions" became "Chapter 2 - Some Objections". You can find chapter 2 here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/opC5inaneMqrpdk

[@CK-sn2lg]

Wait, is this C.S. Lewis's actual voice???

[@CSLewisDoodle]

No, that's a narrator. Here is Lewis' own voice in a doodle: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6qpi5V3n7yKfZY

[@nwsanagnwsths]

6:03 - 6:26 .-

[@starkillerx2020]

whats unfortunate is that he doesnt mention social evolution of the tribe. how we as social species developed morals (not universal "laws of nature) to better benefit our group. a tribe that indiscriminately kills each other does not survive, but a cooperative one does. a shame really, his line of thinking forces him to venture into irrational pseudoscience

[@CSLewisDoodle]

O contraire! C.S Lewis does address that very issue, here in a later doodle, in talk 5: kzbin.info/www/bejne/opC5inaneMqrpdk Lewis was an atheist before he gave it up, so he knows the “survival argument” quite well. If you want some more academic replies as to how that argument falls down, there are a number of works that cover the issue in detail. Here are three paragraphs from different Lewis essays if you are up for the challenge: Lewis: “I am not convinced, however, that Professor Smart's [atheistic] system does avoid these inconveniences. Those rules are to be accepted which are useful to the community, utility being (I think) what will make that community "happier" [as Prof. Smart calls it]. Does this mean that the happiness of the community is to be pursued at all costs, or only to be pursued in so far as this pursuit is compatible with certain degrees of mercy, human dignity, and veracity? (I must not add "of justice" because, in Professor Smart's view, the rules themselves cannot be· either just or unjust). If we take the second alternative, if we admit that there are some things, or even anyone thing, which a community ought not to do however much it will increase its happiness, then we have really given up the position. We are now judging the useful by some other standard (whether we call it Conscience, or Practical Reason, or Law of Nature or Personal Preference). Suppose then, we take the first alternative: the happiness of the community is to be pursued at all costs. In certain circumstances the costs may be very heavy. In war, in some not improbable future when the world's food runs short, during some threat of revolution, very shocking things may be likely to make the community happier or to preserve its existence. We cannot be sure that frame-ups, witch-hunts, even cannibalism, would never be in this sense "useful". Let us suppose (what, I am very sure, is false) that Professor Smart is prepared to go the whole. hog. It then remains to ask him why he does so or why he thinks we should agree with him. He of all men cannot reply that "salus populi suprema lex" is the Law of Nature; firstly, because he "does not know what the Law of Nature is", and secondly, because we others know that "the people should be preserved" is not the Law of Nature but only one clause in that Law. What then could a pursuit of the community's happiness at all costs be based on if not on Professor Smart's "personal preference?" The real difference between him and me would then be simply that we have different desires. Or, rather, that I have one more desire than he. For, like him, I desire the continuance and happiness of my country (and species), (Note A) but then I also desire that they should be people of a certain sort, behaving in a certain way. The second desire is the stronger of the two. If I cannot have both, I had rather that the human race, having a certain quality in their lives, should continue for only a few centuries than that. losing freedom, friendship, dignity, and mercy, and learning to be quite content without them, they should continue for millions of millenia. If it is merely a matter of wishes, there is really no further question for discussion. Lots of people feel like me, and lots feel the other way. I believe that it is in our age being decided which kind of man will win. (Note A) I am not sure whether for Professor Smart the "community" means the nation or the species. If the former, difficulties arise about international morality, in discussing which I think Professor Smart would have to come to the species sooner or later. (Essay: ‘A Reply: On Punishment’) "...All this is so obvious...but how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the [atheistic] moral reformer who, after saying that 'good' means 'what we are conditioned to like' goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be 'better' that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven's names does he mean by 'better'? He usually has at the back of his mind the notion that if he throws over traditional judgement of value, he will find something else, something more 'real' or 'solid' on which to base a new scheme of values. He will say, for example, 'We must abandon irrational taboos and base our values on the good of the community' - as if the maxim 'Thou shalt promote the good of the community' were anything more than a polysyllabic variant of 'Do as you would be done by' which has itself no other basis than the old universal value judgement he claims to be rejecting. Or he will endeavour to base his values on biology and tell us that we must act thus and thus for the preservation of our species. Apparently he does not anticipate the question, 'Why should the species be preserved?' He takes it for granted that it should, because he is really relying on traditional judgements of value. If he were starting, as he pretends, with a clean slate, he could never reach this principle. Sometimes he tries to do so by falling back on 'instinct'. 'We have an instinct to preserve our species', he may say. But have we? And if we have, who told us that we must obey our instincts? And why should we obey this instinct in the teeth of many others which conflict with the preservation of the species? The reformer knows that some instincts are to be obeyed more than others only because he is judging instincts by a standard, and the standard is, once more, the traditional morality which he claims to be superseding. The instincts themselves obviously cannot furnish us with grounds for grading the instincts in a hierarchy. If you do not bring a knowledge of their comparative respectability TO your study of them, you can never derive it FROM them. This whole attempt to jettison traditional values as some thing subjective and to substitute a new scheme of values for them is wrong. It is like trying to lift yourself by your own coat collar. It is perfectly futile, after having dismissed traditional morality with the question, 'Why should we obey it?' then to attempt the reintroduction of value at some later stage in our philosophy. Any value we reintroduce can be countered in just the same way. Every argument used to support it will be an attempt to derive from premises in the indicative ['This is.'] mood a conclusion in the imperative [You should!]. And this is impossible". (Essay ‘The Poison of Subjectivism’). "...How then does it come about that men who talk as if we could stand outside all moralities and choose among them as a woman chooses a hat, nevertheless exhort us (and often in passionate tones) to make some one particular choice? They have a ready answer. Almost invariably they recommend some code of ethics on the ground that it, and it alone, will preserve civilization, or the human race. What they seldom tell us is whether the preservation of the human race is itself a duty or whether they expect us to aim at it on some other ground. Now if it is a duty, then clearly those who exhort us to it are not themselves really in a moral vacuum, and do not seriously believe that we are in a moral vacuum. At the very least they accept, and count on our accepting, one moral injunction. Their moral code is, admittedly, singularly poor in content. Its solitary command, compared with the richly articulated codes of Aristotle, Confucius, or Aquinas, suggests that it is a mere residuum; as the arts of certain savages suggest that they are the last vestige of a vanished civilization. But there is a profound difference between having a fanatical and narrow morality and having no morality at all. If they were really in a moral vacuum, whence could they have derived the idea of even a single duty?..." (On Ethics). Give me a thumbs up (or down) if you receive this as KZbin have been removing some 'cut and paste' type posts.

[@_romeopeter]

CS Lewis wasn't just brilliant but intelligent. So are these illustrations.

[@MattyJohn146]

brilliant