Monday, September 20, 2010

Stick this up your Moral Law, C.S. Lewis

Mr. Black
This post is the love-child of an ongoing argument I'm having on Facebook right now, which is around 53 comments long and going. Whew! So here we go.

Many Christians invoke the Moral Law idea of C.S. Lewis as being proof that we were created by God and that "morality" is not objective. I'd agree with him on one part, that being that morality is not completely objective. You can see this by finding common moral views that span across many cultures; varying slightly of course. We wouldn't want to make this easy now, would we Lew? So because "God is written on our hearts" that is ultimate proof that we were created by God and is our prime element that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

One example I hear is "rape happens in the animal kingdom all the time." Sure it does, and it happens with us as well, and we deem it immoral. But that argument assumes that all animals are cool with being raped. That is not the case. I've seen my own dog nearly get his face torn off trying to mount a bitch. So how do you explain that? According to C.S. Lewis anything moral only applies to humans. So why would this dog care if it was forcefully fucked? Was it deeming being raped immoral? Was she just not in the mood?

Let's take it a bit further. Many animals, males in particular, have methods of attracting a female mate. From colorful feathers, to an all out one on one battle. If rape was the primary method of reproduction in non-humans why would this exist? Why wouldn't every animal just force themselves on the female? Why go through this waste of time of trying to attract a mate and hope she picks you?

What's the difference between the fluffing of the tail feathers of a peacock to me wining and dining a woman to get her to bed with me? There isn't one. We are a more complex species therefore our methods are more complex (and expensive for that matter).

I also argue--you still hearing this Lew? I know that dirt can be a hell of a sound barrier--that any "moral" idea can be directly linked to primal instinct. All species have two hardwired instincts : survival and procreation. Murder doesn't exactly promote the survival of a species does it? Neither does rape, especially when you piss off her boyfriend and he comes to kill your ass. How does that help a species live in harmony and thrive?

Now with us crazy humans things get a little more granular, such as in Texas you can't have any butt sex, or in California you can't carry a handgun, but those are really pointless. They all stem from either a religious dogma (in the case of the buttsecks) or survival (carrying a handgun). Even procreation has laws in some places like China. In that case reproduction is affecting the survival of the species. I know that sounds like a paradox, but it basically means too much population is a bad thing when it comes to resources which in turn fucks a species in the butt (sorry Texas).

So there you go Lew.

-----

Addendum


Mr. Black

By some strange coincidence, the day after I wrote this I wanted to check out what Sam Harris had been up to. Turns out he's coming out with a book entitled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values. The video below is a short lecture he did at the TED conference and gives you a summary of the ideas presented in his book.


No comments: