Proofs of God

Humans are social animals and there are social conventions on acceptable behaviour. Indeed it is necessary to have such conventions for society to work. Lewis' argument fails at this point because he does not consider these facts.I would add that the idea that the prohibition on murder being a similarity between societies is meaningless. Any killing that was not against the laws of a society would, by definition, not be considered murder within that society.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

I disagree with Lewis because his arguments fail to establish his claims. Indeed Lewis' arguments are often poor. (To take an example Lewis justifies the witch trials on the basis that it ought to be acceptable to execute witches. Aside from the question of whether Christians should be using the death penalty at all - does "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ring any bells ? or "judge not, lest ye be judged" ? - the fact is that those executed were NOT witches. Lewis does not address that issue, nor the methods used to convict "witches" and so leaves the most important issues untouched).However I did not claim that morality is merely herd instinct either, and it is a misrepresentation to claim I did.In my view, morality, as we have it, is a social phenomenon owing more to "memes" than to genes. It is based in instinct but much of it goes a long way beyond instinct. Much of it is based on the practical needs of society, some of it is only tradition that now serves no real purpose (if it ever did - think of "female circumcision" for an example from another society). It is passed on from one generation to the next, changing as it does so.Here's a question can you name some similarity between the moralities of different socities that is not either clearly based in human nature or in the practical needs of a society ?

The witchburning reference is in the sample pages on Amazon.The page numbers are 25-6 by Amazon's numbering, and 14-15 by the displayed page numbers.And perhaps you cna explain why pointing out the flaws in Lewis' arguments consitutes "hiding behind" millions of years ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

Hold on, my point in raising the witch burning reference was - explicitly given - as an example of the poor quality of Lewis' argument. Lewis argues that it would be morally acceptable to execute witches but he also implicitly admits that those executed were NOT witches. So was it right to execute them or not ? Lewis does not deal with the issue. And you likewise have not dealt with my point.Oh, and if you want to argue that Darwin was equally superficial I suggest that you produce an example - an actual example.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

Lewis is discussing the execution of "witches". He argues that it would be acceptable to execute actual witches however he also admits that those executed were innocent of being witches. So he has not justified the actual executions - but the question asked was ABOUT the actual executions.
To deal with the actual question he would have to explain when it is acceptable to execute people who are innocent of the crime they are accused of, and show that those circumstances actually did apply. Since the real situation frequently involved confessions extracted under torture I think most people now - AND WHEN LEWIS WROTE - would disagree with Lewis judgement - for reasons Lewis' ignores altogether.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

To add to the points raised against Lewis, I have already pointed out that the "basic similarities" between the moralities of different societies are explicable even if morality is a intersubjective social construct as I have suggested. Nobody has bothered to offer any counter argument, at this point.To use one of Lewis' own examples driving on the left and driving on the right are basically similar but there is a clear advantage to having one rule or the other.
(To use parallels with evolution there are functional constraints similar to convergent evolution, common ancestry of cultures as with species and cultural crossovers which are like lateral transfer)Lewis' offers one other point against morality as a social convention and that is comparison of moralities - although it is notable that he does not apply this to the witch hunters (why not ?).
To look at the issue in more detail there are ways in which a moral system can be agreed to be superior even without an absolute standard.Firstly one system may be based on inaccurate beliefs - Lewis himself raises this possibility to defend the witch hunters but it could also apply at least in part even to the Nazis. I hope that nobody here would argue that the Nazi view of the Jews, for instance, was factually correct.Secondly one system may better implement the underlying values better than another. If we agree on the values and only differ on the system implementing them then it is certainly possible that one system is better than the other.The only real issue then, is where there is disagreement on moral values. Which raises two questions. If Lewis' view is true is that even possible ? And if it is then how could we show which is superior ?

It seems to me that you have not read my posts sufficiently to even know what my point is. I am criticising a specific argument. That argument fails to address an important point. Even *if* that point were addressed later in the book - which you have given me no reason to believe - it would still be necessary for Lewis to refer to that in the section under discussion. And there is no such reference. Indeed unless there is such an argument in the book your claim about the context is a clear falsehood - so if you wish to claim otherwise, what IS Lewis' argument on this point ?My point is that Lewis is claiming that the execution of "witches" was morally justified. However he also claims that those executed were NOT witches and therefore innocent of the charges which are the only justification for their execution. Lewis therefore has failed to justify the executions since his only argument implicitly assumes the guilt of those executed. This also undermines the claim that moral codes have not changed, since there are clearly moral issues involved in the issue of wrongful convictions and executions - the more so when the use of torture to secure confessions is considered.If Lewis' argument is so well thought out then why is this particular example so appallingly superficial ? Lewis does not even address the issues of capital punishment in general nor the means of execution - both moral issues directly involved in the very point under discussion.

I will simply note that my citicisms of Lewis' argument are so far unanswered. If Lewis' argument is so compelling perhaps you can present his responses to the points I have raised ? If he does not then his argument must be judged superficial.

If you don't have the book, then don;t try to defend it by guessing what it says. The question is specifically about EXECUTING witches and whether that was morally correct.Now I don't know about you but if many innocent people were being executed after being tortured into confessing - when the only grounds for suspicion is ALSO evidence extracted under torture then I would think that there is a real moral issue. No matter if people "really" beleived that they were guilty - after all we still have mniscarriages of justice and every time one is exposed people now DO raise a fuss. They don't think that it is all right to put people in jail - let alone execute them - without adequate evidence is morally correct.Apparently you believe otherwise. Indeed you seem to think that it is self-evidently morally correct to convict and even execute anyone who is believed to be guilty, regardless of the evidence. If you did not believe that you would have to concede that there are moral questions here that Lewis does not even attempt to address.

If you have the book then you have no reason to claim that it was anything other than the execution of "witches" that was under discussion. I have read a good deal of the book - although it was a while ago - but so far we have not got beyond the section available on Amazon.And why are you so frustrated that an point raised ONLY as an example of the low quality of argument from Lewis' is from what you call a "side note" (it isn't a footnote or an appendix it is part of the main text) ? The main line of Lewis' argument is also being discussed, but you don't seem to be interested in that - instead you try to argue about this side point. Nor do you seem to be actually interested in a reasonable defence of what Lewis said even on the points that you do attempt to discuss.Let me make it simple for you - either there is NO significant moral issue in the torture and execution of people for crimes they did not commit or Lewis' argument leaves out a relevant moral issue completely.

I note a consistent failure among Lewis' defenders to address the point I am raising.Lewis only offers a justification for the execution of those actually guilty of witchcraft. Since he acknowledges that ALL those executed were innocent of witchcraft he has not justified a single execution. To actually justify the executions would require explaining when the execution of someone who was in fact innocent would be justified and showing that those circumstances were in fact met. While that is not done there is indeed a real possibility that moral standards have changed.Why is this point not addressed ? Is it because the supporters of Lewis in this discussion cannot answer it ? Or is it because they cannot see anything wrong with executing anyone accused of a capital crime regardless of their guilt ?

Although the supporters of Lewis seem to prefer discussing - or rather NOT discussing - the problems with Lewis' defence of the executions of alleged witches I would rather get on with the main argument.Many people feel that homosexual behaviour is inherently morally wrong. Many others feel otherwise. Even societies do not have a single consistent stance.Is either side objectively correct ? If so which one ? Can it be objectively shown ?And most importantly if Lewis is correct, why is there such a disagreement ?I would add that answers cannot assume Christianity to be true. Since this argument is part of the groundwork for an argument for Christianity such an assumption would introduce a circularity that would destroy the argument.

Your response makes no sense. Of course people want to defend what Lewis said - that is their only purpose in responding. And what Lewis said was that the execution of "witches" was morally acceptable EVEN THOUGH every execution was a miscarriage of justice. That is absolutely clear. But nobody is prepared to defend THAT so instead they either try to pretend that Lewis said something else or ignore the point altogether.Yes their responses are similar - in that they evade the point or misrepresent what Lewis clearly said. Nobody offers any argument to support their claim that Lewis said anything else, nobody deals with the issue of wrongful executions despite the fact that it is clearly implicit in Lewis own statements.As to the rest of your post.Your claim that there are no differences in "substance" in moralities are clearly false as indicated by the exceptions you mention. Clearly there are such differences. There are restrictions on who can kill who but no absolute agreement on what those limits should be. Is that not a substantial difference ? That an act might be murder in one society but completely acceptable in another ?And I have no idea what "extreme" case you are talking about. I haven't offered any case I consider extreme at all.The issue of homosexuality is a GOOD one to discuss for this argument since the disagreements are quite clear. If we cannot discuss cases where there are obvious problems for Lewis' argument then there is no point in trying to discuss at all. Indeed at present I see little point in even attempting to discuss the issues on the grounds that so far the responses have been on the lines of "Lewis must be right so you must be wrong". Well if you are a dogmatic worshipper of C. S. Lewis that might be good enough but for those of us who hoped for a serious discussion this thread has been a severe disappointment. The best I can say is that the lack of serious response is itself confirming evidence for my position.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-06-2003]

There seems to be an inconsistency in your words and your actions. YOu claim that you want to discuss the book but so far the only point you have chosen to discuss has been one side issue. The points on Lewis' main line of argument have been ignored by you. Indeed even in your own posts you misrepresented the book on the one point you have chosen to discuss (post 43).However I am not convinced that very small children do understand fairness. Lewis' argument on the point IIRC begged the question by assuming that the motivation was a desire for "fairness" rather than greed or selfishness. In my view the only thing that can show a desire for "fairness" is when it is shown that it is a desire for OTHERS to be treated fairly. In my view fairness is learnt as part of socialisation and is part of the recognition of others as being human and the development of empathy. Steven Pinker had some interesting things to say in _How the Mind Works_ and while I certainly would not endorse everything Pinker says it is worth at least dipping into it.For instance the section on "altruism" ("I AND THOU" p 396-407) especially the section on Trivers' work on reciprocal altruism (p 402-5) or the section "FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES" (p502-9).You might also like to consider these statements.
"In _Human Universals_, the anthropologist Donald Brown has assembled the traits that as far as we know are found in all humn cultures. THe yinclude presitge and status, inequality of power and wealth, property, inheritance, reciprocity, punishment, sexual modesty, sexual regulations, sexual jealousy, a male preference for young women as sexual partners, a dividion of labour by sex (including more child care by women and greater public dominance by men), hostility to other groups and confict within the group, including violence, rape and murder."
Since these commonalities are not all moral it is worth asking if there is a good reason to attribute a special origin to some but not others of these.

No, you have not made it clear that I have misunderstood what Lewis was saying. You have made it clear that you assert that but you have not shown any other viable interpretation.It is quite clear that Lewis is defending wrongful executions(although Lewis may not have thought it through enough to realise that - which is really my point).
Since Lewis states that there are no "witches" in the relevant sense it follows that everyone executed for that offence was wrongfully executed, since they cannot possibly be guilty. So all it remains for me to show is that Lewis was defending the executions of witches.
The question Lewis was responding to was :
"Three hundred years ago people were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" (p14)Lewis' argument is intended to answer that it WAS "Right Conduct", how can it possibly be interpeted otherwise ?Moving on. If Lewis' "Law of Human nature" is restricted to broad similarities which are found in all cultures then how can we call one cultures morality superior to anothers as Lewis claims ? And how could such a comparison be made on anything other than the shared moral base ? If it were made on that basis then such a claim could be made on the without assuming anything more than an intrasubjective moral foundation which has already been accepted as existing.What is more, if there is no objective moral rule against homosexuality - and if you assert that Lewis' law is restricted to broad ideas like having some restriction on killing then there can be no such rule - then another problem appears. There are clearly people who regard homosexual behaviour as objectively immoral - but if there is no such rule this must be, in fact, a subjective view. If people can make this sort of error then it further undermines the idea introduced by the comparison of moralities because it is clearly the case that people can mistake subjective views on moral issues for objective truths.