Lewis on absolutes in good vs. evil?

Question

If there is noabsolute standard for good and evil (i.e. God) then there is neither good, nor evil.
Agree or disagree, and WHY?

Answer 1

This largely depends on what you mean by absolute standard. In "The Abolition of Man," Lewis argues for moral axioms, much like logical axioms. Logical axioms are assumed to be true without proof and are used to prove other things. Moral axioms (things we should and should not do) are likewise an unquestioned starting point for value judgments, without which value judgments are not possible. But in spite of being Christian himself, he does not bring in God as the source of the moral axioms. Instead he points our their universality among human cultures (in a rather long appendix). We don't summon up God as the absolute standard for the modus ponens inference rule -- we just all agree that the world wouldn't make sense without it. There is some small hope that someday we'll agree in like fashion about moral reasoning.

Answer 2

Disagree....leaving aside the God/religion aspect, there is good/evil. Anything that is positive, has a positive impact, or is non-threatening, non-harmful is good. It does not take God, a religion or a spiritual belief to be good, do good. Evil, as a concept is that which is harmful, causing ruin, injury, or pain. Again, it needs no God, religion, or spiritual belief to be.
I don't believe there is an absolute standard for good or for evil. A person who lives morally, and mind you I don't mean moral as in spiritual/religious, is doing good. I may feel as though it is "good" to give my children only two hours of television, while my friend feels that all they want is "good"...who is right? Both are...their own good...that which they perceive to be non-harmful....is good. Not a great example, I know...but all I can think o on the spur of the moment.

Answer 3

Disagree: God, if s/he exists, is merely the enforcer, not the equivalent to morality. If you were in an anarchist country, would that make everything you do OK, just because no one is watching or setting the absolute standard? Some would say that we are always being watched regardless, but that's a non-fallible argument.

For me, good and evil exist only as standards relative to the existence of human beings, who inherently deserve life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. But even these aren't "absolutes", as it is occasionally OK to imprison people, and one might even argue that the taking of life is acceptable as collateral damage or the unforeseen consequence of a potentially life-saving surgical operation, for example. You don't need absolutes in order for good and evil to exist -- it's not a 2-edged choice between total absolutism and total relativism.

Answer 4

I disagree. The concepts of good and evil derives from societal constructs. Each society defines what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. What is considered evil in one society may be considered the norm and be approved of in another.
Therefore there can not be an absolute standard for good and evil, becauses the constructs held by various societies are not the same nor are they absolute.

Answer 5

Agree, in a sense. There is no ABSOLUTE, or OBJECTIVE good nor evil. There is relative good and evil all the time, everywhere. It is relative to the person making the definition, the culture that person comes from, the century in which he or she lives, and the situation that person is in when making the definition.

Answer 6

How about the Judean concept of one and only one God? Evil then must spring from God. Yet he good. God scourges man with the rod of evil that he may know the path to righteousness. That is their belief.

Answer 7

Disagree

There is so clearly no absolute standard that I can't express it all here. Is it wrong to slaughter thousands of babies to change one man's mind? Is it wrong to slaughter 40 children for laughing at someone? God did both of those things, is he absolute goodness?

What about Japan? They are basically atheist yet have far far fewer murders (per capita as well as raw numbers). Where did they get this "morality" from?

Answer 8

I disagree. Stop thinking about this in terms of abstractions, and shift to thinking about how things work for us regular human beings down here on earth:
If something is good for you but bad for me, it really and truly will be GOOD for you and BAD for me. The fact that this is relative to our perspective or our circumstances has no "real" bearing on the significance and the existence of the "good" or "evil" of the matter for each of us.

Answer 9

Love is the standard upon which all good is measured.
It hopes all things, believes all things, endures all things, does not keep account of injury etc.