Lewis anticipates the pushback — and his willingness to sit with hard objections before answering them is part of what makes his argument trustworthy.

Discussion Questions

6 questions

1.The first objection Lewis takes up is that the Moral Law is just herd instinct. How does he distinguish between a moral impulse and a moral law? What is the analogy he uses about two different impulses (such as helping someone in danger vs. self-preservation)?

2.Lewis argues that the Moral Law is not itself an instinct but the thing that *adjudicates* between instincts. Does this distinction make sense to you? Can you think of a personal example where two instincts conflicted and something else decided which one to follow?

3.The second major objection is that the Moral Law is just social convention — different societies have different moralities. Lewis grants that moral codes differ in detail but argues the differences are less significant than they appear. What is his counter-argument here?

a.Has relativism ('morality is just cultural') ever tempted you? What was the appeal?

b.Lewis points out that we cannot call any society 'more advanced' morally if there is no objective standard to measure by. Do you agree?

4.Lewis says the Moral Law is more like mathematics than like facts about the physical world — it isn't something we observe so much as something we *reason* our way to. What are the implications of that for how we should treat moral reasoning?

5.At the end of Chapter 2, Lewis says he is deliberately setting up a position he will later knock down. What is the rhetorical strategy here, and what does it tell you about how he thinks good persuasion works?

+ 3 more questions in this week

Get all 176 questions across 29 weeks

Get Full Guide — $24.99