This second post in the series addresses more of the first chapter of Mere Christianity, which is dedicated to fallacious attempts to argue that wildly differing cultures somehow agree on the nature of morality--and that this supposed agreement is of epistemological importance. The pages to be referenced center on the subjects of consensus, hypocrisy, and moral obligations, and C.S. Lewis characteristically fails to understand all three. Since a large part of Mere Christianity pertains to morality, this undermines much of the book at the outset.
The following excerpt directly clarifies that Lewis thinks the differences between cultural values are relatively minor at best:
"If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians. Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own." (6)
The problem with this statement is that the differences between cultural and even individual ideas about morality or the perceptions of those ideas are blatant, common, and wholly contradictory. For one of these ideas to be right, a host of others must be wrong. Details matter, and it is the details of moral epistemology and ethics that all Christian apologists who try to "prove" some imagined, broad moral consensus must ignore or lie about. Of course, agreement proves nothing except that people agree. There is nothing that is impossible for an entire group of people to agree upon, but consensus is never either the reason something is true or the basis for knowing, if it is possible, whether something is true or false. That agreement does not establish truth is one of the reasons why cultural relativism is objectively false, whether or not morality exists!
Moreover, this idea utterly trivializes the cases of human sacrifice, sexual abuse, unbiblical torture, and other atrocities according to Mosaic Law that have been normalized, defended, and even called good by some throughout history. Hell, prison rape is mocked and ignored by all but a few American Christians, and yet those same Christians will often focus their efforts into defending the notion that unjust killings have always been regarded as wrong when there are even enormous disparities between how individuals and cultures might regard killing. Evangelicals are particularly fond of theological ideas from which it would necessarily follow that Roman crucifixion, perhaps the most unjust and degrading standardized procedure in the historical record, was just when a murderer or thief was convicted [2].
After endorsing some of the most easily refuted and dangerous myths about moral agreement, Lewis proceeds to give a hypothetical example that does not prove what he claims it does:
"A nation may say treaties don't matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong . . . what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, that we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong." (6-7)
Hypocrisy is a great indicator of insincerity, a lack of self-awareness, or sheer stupidity, and it can be an indicator of any combination of these three qualities. However, hypocrisy only reveals an inconsistency between action and belief (or professed belief) or an inconsistency between one action and another. The truth of an ideology is not disproven or even challenged when people fail to live it out--unless for some reason the ideology holds that there is no such thing as hypocrisy!
Of course it is asinine to make moral objections to some action or idea while spouting moral relativism or moral nihilism (moral relativism reduces down to nihilism, but far too many people are too inept to see this). What Lewis ignores is that the kind of hypocrisy he describes in his example of the treaty is not even evidence for the existence of morality. Rather, it is confirmation that some people, and even many people, are too egoistic or philosophically incompetent to truly stay consistent. This is what should not surprise a rational person who has contemplated the norms and behaviors of their day. If anything, it is odd when entire cultures are truly consistent in trying to live out their values.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-myths-about-moral-agreement.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
No comments:
Post a Comment