C. S. Lewis introduces the concept of the Law of Human Nature by observing that human quarrels reveal a universal moral awareness. People argue not merely out of preference but by appealing to a shared standard of fairness and right conduct, implying that all recognize some moral law even when they violate it. Lewis explains that this Law of Nature differs from physical or biological laws because it can be disobeyed. Every human is subject to natural forces but possesses moral freedom—to choose right or wrong. Ancient thinkers believed this moral awareness was innate, and Lewis supports this view by noting that, despite cultural differences, human moral codes have always shown striking similarity. He argues that denying the reality of Right and Wrong is self-defeating: those who reject moral law still appeal to fairness when wronged. This contradiction demonstrates that moral awareness is universal and objective, not a matter of taste or opinion. Finally, Lewis concludes that humanity universally acknowledges this law yet consistently fails to keep it. People justify their misconduct through excuses, which ironically affirm their belief in moral obligation. These two facts—the knowledge of moral law and humanity’s failure to obey it—form the foundation for understanding human nature and the moral order of the universe.
Some people think the Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, is just an instinct or a herd instinct. I do not deny that we have instincts, such as the desire to help others, motherly love, or self-preservation. But the Moral Law is not any one of these instincts. It tells us what we ought to do, even if it goes against our stronger impulses. For example, we may naturally want to avoid danger, but the Moral Law tells us to help someone in peril. It judges between instincts and guides us toward what is right. Others say the Moral Law is merely a social convention, something taught by parents and society. I disagree. While we do learn right behavior from teachers and books, this does not make it an invention of man. True moral law, like mathematics, exists independently of us. Even though moral ideas vary across countries and ages, the differences are small compared to the consistency we see in basic principles of decency. Some people have better understood and applied this law, which shows there is a real standard of Right and Wrong. Apparent historical differences in morality often reflect differences in belief about facts rather than moral principle. For example, executing witches was based on mistaken beliefs, not a different moral law. In conclusion, the Law of Human Nature is universal, objective, and guides humans to act rightly, distinct from instincts and social conventions, and provides a standard for moral progress.
I observe two peculiar things about humanity: first, that we all believe in a standard of behavior—what we call decency or the Law of Nature—and second, that we constantly fail to live up to it. Stones and trees simply follow the laws of nature; they are what they are. But humans know how they ought to behave and yet often act otherwise. This distinction reveals something unique about us—a real Moral Law that tells us what we ought to do, not merely what we do. It cannot be explained as mere instinct, convenience, or social conditioning, for moral judgment goes beyond self-interest or societal gain. We blame wrongdoing even when it harms us less, and we honor honesty or sacrifice even when it costs us. If morality were only about personal or collective benefit, saying we “ought” to be fair would be meaningless—it would merely restate itself. Therefore, I conclude that the Moral Law is real and objective—something we did not invent, but which we all recognize pressing upon us. It exists above mere facts or behavior, pointing to a deeper reality beyond ourselves.
I have concluded that what we call the Laws of Nature may merely describe how things behave, not prescribe how they ought to behave. But with humanity, it is different. The Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, stands above our actions—it tells us what we ought to do, not simply what we do. This realization leads me to question what the universe itself tells us. There are two great explanations: the materialist view, in which matter and space simply exist by chance, producing life through a series of accidents; and the religious view, which holds that behind the universe is a conscious Mind—a purposeful Being who made it. Science, though invaluable, cannot answer why the universe exists or whether there is a purpose behind it. Its task is to describe observable facts, not to explain what lies beyond them. Yet, there is one case where we possess inside knowledge—ourselves. As human beings, we experience the Moral Law within, a command we did not create but which urges us toward right action. If an external observer studied humanity without this inner awareness, he could never detect this moral obligation; it is something known only from within. The same may be true of the universe: if there is a Power behind it, we could not observe it as a mere fact among others. It would reveal itself, as it does in us, as a guiding influence or command. Thus, the only "letter" we can open is ourselves—and within we find evidence of a Lawgiver, a Power that directs the universe and speaks through the moral law. I do not yet claim this Power to be the Christian God, but I see that it must be something like a mind, for only mind gives commands. What it truly is, I will explore further.
I have realized that the Moral Law points to someone or something beyond the material universe, and that this realization can be unsettling. Progress does not always mean moving forward; if we are on the wrong road, the quickest way to progress is to turn back and face the truth about ourselves and the world. Humanity has taken a wrong turn, and recognizing that is the first step toward understanding. We have two sources of evidence about the power behind the Moral Law. One is the universe itself, which shows beauty but also danger. The other is the Moral Law within us, which gives inside information about this Being. From it, I conclude that the Power behind the universe is intensely concerned with right conduct—fairness, unselfishness, courage, honesty, and truthfulness. Yet this Power is not indulgent; it does not soften its commands or make allowances. If it exists, it is absolute in its standards, making us simultaneously unable to escape its demands and aware that we often fail. This sets up the human dilemma: if there is no absolute goodness, our efforts are futile; if there is, we are already in opposition to it. This understanding is the necessary precursor to Christianity, which speaks meaningfully only after we recognize that we have broken the Moral Law and need forgiveness. Only by facing the reality of this Law and the Power behind it can one begin to understand the claims and comfort offered by religion. Seeking comfort before truth leads to illusions and eventual despair; seeking truth, though frightening, may ultimately bring real comfort.
Explore more books by the same author(s).