Moral relativism has for many years now been a very controversial subject. In general, the people who are in favor of moral relativism argue that ethical and moral standards of right and wrong are subjective to a person or a culture’s individual choice.
In his book The Signature Classics, C.S. Lewis presented a strong and logical argument as to why he believes moral relativism might be erroneous. Before he began his argument, Lewis defined morality as the law of nature that humans can willingly disobey. It has been scientifically proven that certain laws of nature cannot be disobeyed; the law of gravity would be a great example. However, as he explained, this law is one which is unique to the human nature, a law that we do not share with animals,…show more content… As he explained, no country on this earth will happily celebrate a murderer. Hence, according to him, people from different cultures might have created different moral laws by adding to, subtracting from or modifying the original law. That however does not stop it from existing; the law of human nature as Lewis named is the law that is foundational to every other law. Lewis also gave his opinion about two objections to the law of human nature. According to him, people believe that morality is just an instinct which pushes people to do the right thing. It is not different from hunger or sexual desires. Morality, however cannot simply be an instinct according to Lewis for two different reasons. The first reason is the fact that we might be in a situation where we have to choose between two totally opposite instincts. When we are in such a situation, we need a third thing to help us judge between the two instincts. This thing that helps us decide which one of them should be encouraged can obviously not be either of the instincts. Under normal circumstances, the stronger instinct should be able to win over the weaker one. However, there is always something that helps us choose the right instinct. That something according to