Posts
The Abolition
of Man, C.S. Lewis
Lewis closes this short book with an Appendix: Illustrations
of the Tao. He offers numerous illustrations of Natural
Law to be found in history and in many cultures: ancient Egyptian, Jewish,
Chinese, Old Norse, Babylonian, Roman, Hindu, Christian, Anglo-Saxon, Greek, Australian
Aborigines. In some cases, specific
authors are noted: Confucius, Locke, Cicero, Plato, and authors of various
Epistles from the New Testament.
He formats his review in sections (the summaries are mine):
The Law of General
Beneficence: there is the negative (various versions of “Thou shalt not…”) –
presenting a list longer than one that would be consistent with punishment
under libertarian theory; and the positive (various versions and extensions of
the Golden Rule).
The Law of Special
Beneficence: drawing out the special relationships of humans with humans –
beginning with immediate family, extending to a broader “kin,” and eventually
to one’s community and native land.
Duties to Parents,
Elders, and Ancestors: demonstrate respect toward father and mother and
their traditions, extending even to deceased ancestors.
Duties to Children
and Posterity: educate them well, show proper care.
The Law of Justice:
three subsets are presented. Sexual
Justice: do not commit adultery; Honesty: do not steal, make shameful gain, do
not do mischief unless it is done to you first; Justice in Court, etc.: do not
take bribes, bear false witness.
The Law of Good Faith
and Veracity: Do not lie; do not make a false oath; keep your promises.
The Law of Mercy:
feed the hungry, make intercession for the weak, never strike a woman, do not
desert the sick, leave a sheaf from the harvest for the poor.
The Law of
Magnanimity: it is injustice to fail to prevent another from injury, show
courage and do not leave the battle, death is better than life with shame, put
on immortality in your thoughts, the soul should conduct the body, he who loves
his life will lose it.
As noted, these are to be found in numerous cultures around
the world and throughout history. God
has placed these things in men’s hearts – all
men’s hearts. Yet the fruits –
turning Natural Law or the Tao into
action – have varied from place to place and time to time.
This brings me back to the development of law, custom,
tradition and culture in medieval Europe.
It did develop here, and it did last for centuries. Why? Did
the Germanic ethic best capture the honor and justice that is called for? Was this Natural Law best captured in the
Christian tradition? Christians would
respond, “yes, obviously!” As it was the
Creator of this Natural Law that was also the foundation for Christianity, what
else could be expected?
Further, if these are “Natural Laws,” can a society long
survive in significant violation of these?
What might this mean for how to think about the non-aggression principle
in such a context?
Finally, what is not drawn out by Lewis – at least in this short
book – is the “why?” Why any of these “Laws”
as opposed to others? What makes this
list “Natural”?
For this, it seems to me that the answer is to be found in
Aristotle.
First, The Law of Justice: "Do not do mischief unless it is done to you first."
ReplyDeleteWhat is meant by this? Taken at face value, it sounds like retaliation and vengeance, neither of which is compatible with Christianity. "Do not return evil for evil..." and "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord..."
In Fiddler on the Roof, as the Jews of Anatevka are discussing their notice of eviction, one of them shouts, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.", to which Tevye responds, "Soon the whole world will be blind and toothless."
Doing mischief to someone else in response to mischief done to us does not sound like justice to me. Even if it is done to you first.
Second, The Law of Magnanimity: "It is injustice to fail to prevent another from injury."
There are times when it is simply impossible to prevent injury to others. See abortion, for instance. I would say that it is injustice to fail to TRY, in some way, to prevent the injury. Failure itself is not wrong or unjust. We all fail at times, but it is the effort or attempt made to prevent the injury that counts. Refusing to make any effort when you know that injury is being done might well be seen as condoning it, which is as unjust as doing the deed itself.
Regarding the eye for an eye thing...I wrote something recently about this history. It was a vast improvement over the previous practice of 1000 eyes for an eye!
DeleteI'm curious now. Can we see it?
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2019/03/looking-through-wrong-end-of-telescope.html
DeleteFinally got a chance to read the article. Thanks.
DeleteWould you please explain your comment about lex talionis (an eye for an eye) being an improvement over the "previous practice of 1000 eyes for an eye!"
ReplyDeleteI did read your linked article concerning slavery and found one small paragraph concerning lex talionis in the middle of a discourse on slavery.
1. I understand that slavery, heinous as it is, MAY have been better than eternal war and the possibility of being eaten by your captors, but what is the connection between this and lex talionis, which is an affair of justice?
2. What do you refer to when you say that lex talionis was an improvement over 1000 eyes for one eye? I'm assuming it was something similar to the time of the Nazi regime, when the killing of a German soldier would bring about the cold-blooded execution of ten (20?) civilians--young, old, male, female, pregnant, priestly, etc. It didn't matter. The assassination of an officer would result in a higher cost. Can you describe another time in history where something of this nature, only more excessive, occurred? And, was it on a regular scale so that lex talionis actually improved the lot of the common man? Lex talionis being the idea or concept that the punishment should fit the crime.
Sorry about all this, but I'm really trying to make sense of it all.
The connection to slavery is in the title of the post: we look backwards from our current ethical position and cry about the horrors of slavery - but compared to what happened to defeated armies in years past, slavery was a vast improvement.
DeleteSame with an eye for an eye. According to Casey's book, this was an improvement from the prior "affair of justice" - a thousand eyes for one eye.
We look through the wrong end of the telescope when judging such things.