This post will serve as a second in a three-part series. Here we’ll review a refutation of moral relativism offered by author, C.S. Lewis.
As I spoke about in my prior post, moral relativists claim there are no absolute truths. They deny a moral code of conduct shared by all mankind by virtue of their shared human nature. The latter is generally called the Natural Law.
C.S. Lewis shows how moral relativists, at most, can only pit portions of the Natural Law against itself. However, they cannot escape it altogether. This proves there is a Natural Law, thus debunking the theory of moral relativism.
In the next post, Pope Saint John Paul the Great will help us see how moral relativists use their authority to lord over the very people they claim to be setting free.
C.S. LEWIS OFFERS PROFOUND WISDOM ON THE CONTRADICTION OF MORAL RELATIVISTS
Prolific author, C.S. Lewis published a masterful work that does not get as much esteem as it ought. In 1943, he published The Abolition of Man
In there he makes several insightful arguments proving the existence of the Natural Law, which he calls the Tao.
He writes, “If nothing is self-evident,” as moral relativists claim, “[then] nothing can be proven.”
In other words, every argument has to start somewhere. There has to be something everyone can agree on to begin a conversation. Such an obvious proof of absolute truth disproves the theory of moral relativism.
He goes on to speak about the moral relativist, whom he calls “the Innovator.” “[A]ll the values which he uses in attacking Tao (a.k.a., the Natural Law), and even claims to be substituting for it, are themselves derived from Tao.”
Similarly, he writes later, “Only by such shreds of the Tao as he has inherited is he enabled even to attack it. The question therefore arises what title he has to select bits of it for acceptance and to reject others.”
Lewis continues, “If the Tao falls, all his own conceptions of value fall with it. Not one of them can claim any authority other than that of the Tao.”
Lewis furthers his argument in convincing fashion. He writes elsewhere, “If [the Innovator] had really started from scratch, from right outside the human tradition of value, no jugglery could have advanced him an inch towards the conception that a man should die for the community or work for posterity.”
He finishes his thought, “For if the bits he rejects have no authority, neither have those he retains; if what he retains is valid, what he rejects is equally valid too.”
The theory of moral relativism claims there is no such Natural Law, but them presupposes that same law to make its own arguments.
He goes on to speak about the moral relativist, whom he calls “the Innovator.” “[A]ll the values which he uses in attacking Tao (a.k.a., the Natural Law), and even claims to be substituting for it, are themselves derived from Tao.”
THE CULTURE OF DEATH IS DEPENDENT UPON THE DEFICIENT THEORY OF MORAL RELATIVISM
Similarly, the peddlers of the Culture of Death rely on presuppositions from you, in order to advance their agenda.
For example, they expect you to empathize with mothers facing life below the poverty line. They insist the mother would be better off with a dead baby, than to introduce the child into that socioeconomic situation. Such arguments can be defeated.
In other words, moral relativists presuppose everyone can agree on something that is universally held. In this example, they presuppose empathy and not wanting to see other people suffer.
But then they claim that thing trumps something else. So in this instance, they are arguing empathy for the mother triumphs over the baby’s right to life.
But using C.S. Lewis’s line of reasoning, we can see the moral relativist is guilty of a contradiction.
He claims there are no binding morals universally held. But then he relies on one (empathy) to say another one (the right to life) does not exist. So, if he relies on the one, then he has to admit the other exists too.
If the moral relativist pretends to deny this, just ask him a simple question. Do you have the right to murder him?
YOUR TURN
I presented you a refutation of moral relativism from C.S. Lewis. Do you find it as convincing as I do?
Do you have an idea of how to use such an argument in discussions with proponents of the Culture of Death?
Please leave your thoughts below.
I highly recommend you read C.S. Lewis’s book. It’s a quick read and is worth it to get an introduction in the theory of Natural Law.
(Credit cslewisjrrtolkien.classicalautographs.com for the cover photo.)
