All of humanity has the innate ability to recognize certain actions that we should either do or not do. We possess a moral compass pointing to a fixed law that permits us the ability to detect basic right and wrongs.
The apostle Paul would say we know this because the law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15); the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas would say that our natural light of reason detects it; and C. S. Lewis would say this natural law is in our human nature, thus everyone knows it.
The Law
You may have heard of the term moral law before. It is often used by theists (belief in God) to refer to the standard by which we can justify what is objectively good or bad. This is a universal law that transcends all of humanity and is recognized by all of humanity. In moral philosophy, this is also referred to as natural law ethics (I will use moral and natural interchangeably when referencing this law).
I’ll briefly explain the classical conception of natural law ethics. This theory says that morality is grounded in proper functions. So, if you used a hammer that could not perform its proper function and fulfill its purpose of driving nails into a board, then you are lacking functionality in that hammer, and therefore this defective hammer is “bad.”
Unless you know the function or purpose of something, then you can’t determine whether it’s good or bad. On natural law ethics, persons have the ability to contemplate ideas and pursue certain eternal goods; this is where we derive our morality from, and hence what we ought to do in certain situations.
For example, one of the proper functions of a human’s body is to fill it with food enabling our survival; so, to deprive oneself of food to the extent that the body becomes malnourished is a bad thing because our body will cease to function as it should. Thus, one could say our moral “ought” in that we should feed the poor, is based on their bodies needing nourishment so they can continue to function properly and survive.
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis has summarized what this law entails, saying,
“First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.”[1]
For example, a natural law that everyone knows intuitively would be something like, “you should not rape.” This is an established moral law, that no matter what your cultural or religious background you’re from, you have no justification for committing such a horrendous act.
Notable philosopher Michael Peterson explains that natural law theorists believe that
“our human nature possesses the rational capacities to comprehend aspects of this eternal ethical standard without the assistance of revelation and to deduce from these principles how to act.”[2]
Many theistic (belief in God) natural law theorists say that because we are made in the image of God and know the moral law innately, this means we can also understand how to act morally in certain settings.
The Law Is Lacking Without God
But is our awareness of the moral law enough to inspire us to perform certain types of moral actions? Let’s pretend God doesn’t exist while still maintaining that the moral law somehow does. Why should someone care about this universal law of ethics?
It may be advantageous for human flourishing, but there are a lot of societies and individuals who only care about their own flourishing, which means the flourishing of others will be diminished. And how could we be obligated to assist another hurting society in which we are not a part of? Just because we see that x should be done concerning proper human functions, does not mean you are morally obligated to do x.
To explain certain features of morality, there needs to be more than just an overarching rule that we are aware of. Philosopher Craig A. Boyd and theologian Don Thorsen explain that
“The natural law does not delineate every detail of the moral life; rather, it lays down those commonly understood truths that provide the bare minimum for human coexistence. This means that natural law morality is not a complete moral system but requires the development and practice of the virtues as perfecting the agent.”[3]
So, this ethical framework is not sufficient by itself to adequately explain all the unique characteristics that morality boasts, nor can it demand moral obligations/duties of us.
Without God, it seems this law would only be a distant and impersonal reference guide, but it would not be enough to produce authoritative and prescriptively binding moral duties, that is, what we should or should not do in certain moments without hesitancy. Nor does it adequately explain why we feel guilty for failing to do them.
However, when we add God into the picture, we have a personal and maximally great deity who has provided general and specific divine commands for us to follow–Someone who is in a personal relationship with us and giving these commands for our benefit. This is why we experience the imperative force of moral duties and the strong desire to act morally in certain ways when encountering certain situations.
For example, a general command from God would be to help feed the poor; a specific command might be God calling a person to the mission field in Panama to help feed the poor and spread the Gospel by starting a church.
These divine commands make up our moral obligations, and this is why we feel the strong and binding authority behind them. For example, if my loving and caring 5th grade teacher created a “How to Be Kind” rule book at the beginning of the school year for her students to follow, I would have a general reference guide on how to act in certain situations.
However, it becomes a much different scenario when my teacher is actively telling me to comply with the general rules laid out in the book that I’ve memorized, or when she gives additional and detailed specific commands that are not specified within that rule book.
C. S. Lewis’ Moral Law
Lewis was a big proponent of the natural law, and because of his popular writings, I want to briefly review his thoughts and show why the moral law is not enough on his view.
In The Abolition of Man, Lewis seeks to demonstrate the forcefulness of the natural law without having to appeal to God’s existence for it. He is basically arguing that objective morality exists, and we’re all aware of it. He calls this law the Tao, stating,
“It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. . . What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) ‘ideologies,’ all consist of fragments from the Tao itself.”[4]
Lewis is saying there is an absolute and universal moral law out there, which means there can be no new value system concerning morality, because the moment you attempt to invent your own moral system, you are already referencing the established Tao as the very source to make your judgement. This is the natural law morality that all humans know innately and cannot be altered or improved upon.
Lewis illustrates the importance of the Tao through the story of a Roman father telling his son that dying for their country was a noble cause, and the son sincerely believed it.[5] We observe the same ideas today. There are individuals who don’t believe in God yet join the military and willingly sacrifice themselves for a greater good.
There is no doubt that giving one’s life for the betterment of a nation and the honor that follows is a good and commendable act; however, are these things sufficient enough in themselves to obligate someone to give up their life?
Lewis wasn’t even using the Tao to argue for God’s existence. The problem is, without God, we have all evolved from a blind, unguided natural process that has one primary goal engrained within us–survival. On this worldview, why do we see people forsaking their own life for another?
It’s not as if the wars of recent times have been an imminent threat on the doorstep of our nation; rather, these were individuals voluntarily travelled to other places attempting to prevent more suffering imposed by evil doers. And they gave up their ultimate self-interest: the very thing we have every right to cling to in order to ensure personal happiness and prosperity.
There are problems with Lewis’s Tao (natural law) and the binding authority concept it attempts to support. If Lewis wasn’t using the Tao to argue for God’s existence, then how could the natural law impose this kind of moral obligation on the Roman father and son (or anyone) if it is an abstract and impersonal moral law? Even if we could derive our moral “ought” from this law, does it really have the power to persuade me to end my life?
Christian philosophers David Baggett and Jerry Walls also highlight the main dilemma with the Tao, noting,
“The underlying issue here is the relationship between morality and personal self-interest. In particular, can anyone have a moral obligation to act against their ultimate self-interest? Can morality make rational sense if it makes such demands?”[6]
In other words, if the natural law is going to require me to die and lose everything, then it doesn’t seem like a law that would be good for me to follow or have enough pull for me to comply with it, which is what Lewis indirectly argued for.
Although Lewis did an impressive job explaining the self-evident truth behind the Tao, it appears he has not made a convincing case that we are obligated to obey it. On what grounds or foundation can we impose self-sacrificing moral duties if God doesn’t exist?
Why are we obligated to prevent the abolition or destruction of man? What if we have a world of Homo sapiens that evolve to the point of not caring about survival anymore and want to end all suffering by nuking everything?
Even if the Tao is an abstract, immaterial absolute reality–if God doesn’t exist, then there is no grounding source for this moral law, and I don’t think we can be morally obligated to obey it, nor can it produce authoritative moral duties for us to follow.
Regarding the absolute authority of the Tao, Baggett and Walls note,
“Obeying the Tao is necessary to prevent the destruction of society. But the question remains whether this is enough to obligate individuals to be willing to sacrifice their lives. It may be good for humanity at large and the ongoing of human society, but is it good for those particular individuals who are called upon to sacrifice their lives? It does not appear that it is.”[7]
It is because of this, that I find Lewis’s argument for moral obligation to the Tao lacking sufficiency. It doesn’t have the capability of producing universal moral obligations with binding authority as we all currently experience. Let me explain.
Natural Law Fails to Explain Moral Obligations
Natural law ethics has a difficult time adequately explaining all the special features needed to understand our moral obligations. I have written an article explaining the nature of moral obligations and divine commands and how these best make sense under a Divine Command Theory of ethics. But I will briefly review what moral obligations and divine commands are and give some examples.
I hold the view that moral obligations are identical to the commands of God, in the sense that, they are both signifying the same reality. God’s commands are based on a nature of good that exists. This “good” could be God himself, a Platonic account of good, or a natural law conception as we have been discussing thus far.
So, when God commands us to love our neighbor, then that is also our moral duty (I use duty and obligation interchangeably). Distinguished philosopher C. Stephen Evans holds this view, believing that moral obligations are identical to the commands of God and explains that moral obligations are objective (true regardless of what we think); provide compelling and distinctive reasons for actions; explain why we’re motivated to act; and account for the universality of morality.[8]
Likewise, renowned philosopher Robert Adams also believes that God’s commands are identical to moral obligations. He provides a brief description of what he believes constitutes a divine command, stating,
“(1) A divine command will always involve a sign, as we may call it, that is intentionally caused by God. (2) In causing the sign God must intend to issue a command, and what is commanded is what God intends to command thereby. (3) The sign must be such that the intended audience could understand it as conveying the intended command.”[9]
The natural law theory does well in explaining why we all rationally detect or sense this innate moral code that we live by, but it lacks the ability to adequately explain why we feel the imperative force of moral obligations.
Suppose I visited another country and saw a physically disabled and malnourished child holding out her small hands in hopes of getting food from people passing by. I would feel an overwhelming and forceful urge within me to help that little one. I don’t think a mere rule book that I am innately aware of could ever produce such a strong internal desire to help her.
However, it makes good sense to think that if God was the one who issued the command, I could certainly grasp the authority behind it and would happily comply, even though I would have the ability not to comply, as many others have by suppressing those compulsions to aid the less fortunate.
Some people may not recognize a moral obligation as a command by God, but that doesn’t mean the obligation doesn’t exist or that a person isn’t experiencing it. Moreover, this better explains why I would be willing to do whatever it takes to help this child and go out of my way to do it.
As a result, I would be obeying my wonderful God whom I love and who has placed a love, i.e., sacrificial act, in my heart for that child. I say sacrifice because I would be giving up something, and it may require me giving to an extent that keeps me from purchasing what I had previously planned on before seeing that child, or missing an appointment that I needed to keep.
There have been countless Christians in a loving relationship with God who willingly sacrificed their lives by going to help others in need. This happens to persecuted Christians all over the world every day.
This moral obligation was given by their Heavenly Father (God) that they willingly complied with in order to glorify him and create a greater good, whether we can perceive that good or not. Missionaries have also given up their lives to help the poor and hurting. An impersonal moral law cannot account for these kinds of acts.
Moreover, to have a moral obligation is to have a reason to perform an action without consideration.[10] It is something in which you can grasp the binding authoritative nature of, and you are blameworthy if you fail to do it.
Likewise, a moral obligation might be something in which you are guilty of refraining from doing. For example, we have a general moral duty to refrain from torturing animals for fun, and therefore you have been commanded by God not to do such a terrible thing.
Although many natural law theorists believe that the law itself (Lewis’ Tao) is enough to inspire us to perform certain acts, they are still unable to adequately explain our moral obligations or justify self-sacrificial acts. Evans thinks something important is left out by natural law theorists who do not think we need God’s commands, noting,
“Even if it is true that we would have good reasons to do the actions God commands us to do even if God did not give those commands, it is also true that we acquire powerful new reasons for performing (or not performing) various acts when God issues commands.”[11]
Recall my 5th grade self who memorized a generic “How to Be Kind” rule book provided by my loving and caring teacher at the beginning of the school year. Those rules were a good guide to perform reasonable actions, but they weren’t enough to provide overriding reasons to perform them.
But suppose I was walking behind a classroom bully named Billy in the lunchroom as we carried our trays of food. Billy accidentally drops his tray spilling food all over the floor. While other kids are laughing, embarrassed Billy bends down to pick up the silverware, milk carton, and so on. I could easily walk by with a smile on my face as my enemy is cleaning up. However, unknowingly to me, my teacher saw the whole thing standing a short distance away. She reminds me of the already-established rulebook and commands me to be kind and help Billy pick up the mess.
Her authoritative command adds a new and stronger reason for me to perform this moral act of altruism, whereas the rule book I had memorized wasn’t enough to move me to action even though I had good reason to.
Although I could disobey my teacher and choose not to help Billy, I’d rather obey her because of the wonderful lady that she is and I trust that she knows best. Her command adds an overriding reason to perform a kind action (this would be my moral obligation).
Similarly, by adding God’s commands to a natural law ethic to account for moral obligations, we would have powerful and new reasons to perform certain actions that we otherwise would not. Evans says,
“If God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and tells us that all human persons must be considered our neighbors, then we have powerful and overriding reasons to consider the good of others when acting.”[12]
God’s Commands Strengthen the Natural Law
I’m not a natural law theorist–I’m a divine command theorist (although I do think a natural law may exist and is compatible with God’s divine commands). Be that as it may, I enjoy examining a moral theory based on natural law as proposed by many great Christian thinkers over the centuries. I just don’t think it adequately explains the moral obligations that humanity universally experiences, nor does it explain the motivating factors behind why we should perform certain moral actions.
Furthermore, it lacks the binding authority and divine commands we need in order to understand the unique features of our moral duties, and it also fails to explain our guilt when failing to perform them. Lastly, divine commands could act as the grounding source for these moral obligations.
So, to recap: the natural law seems to be lacking by itself, even if God does or does not exist. If God does exist, then we need to add his commands to this ethical theory to account for, and adequately explain, the moral obligations we all experience.
If God doesn’t exist and the natural law somehow remains, then we are left with a distant guide or rule book with no ultimate authority or moral accountability. Evans summarizes it well, saying,
“I believe a natural law ethic that makes no use of divine authority will have difficulty making sense of the special character of moral duties. Nor is there, as far as I can see, any good reason why a theistic natural law theorist should neglect this important resource.”[13]
Now we can better understand why Lewis’ Tao failed to explain all of the special features that morality consists of. If you believe in the natural law morality and this interests you, I highly encourage you to consult God’s Command by eminent philosopher John Hare.
He focuses on a divine command theory of moral duties that complements a natural law theory. So, divine commands are certainly compatible with a natural law ethic, strengthening the overall conception of this theory. This is why the moral law is not enough.
Blessings,
Andrew Drinkard
[1] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2015), 8.
[2] Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5th ed (NY: Oxford University Press, 2013), 351.
[3] Craig A. Boyd and Don Thorsen, Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy: An Introduction to Issues and Approaches (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 74.
[4] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperOne, 2015), 43-44.
[5] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 21.
[6] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 255.
[7] Baggett and Walls, God and Cosmos, 255-256.
[8] C. Stephen Evans, God & Moral Obligation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 26-30.
[9] Robert Merrihew Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2002), 265.
[10] Evans, God & Moral Obligation, 27.
[11] Evans, God & Moral Obligation, 69.
[12] Evans, God & Moral Obligation, 73.
[13] Evans, God & Moral Obligation, 73-74.
