 |
| Right and Wrong by LEWIS (Essay for ADP/B.Sc English Students) |
Q1. Recapitulate Lewis’s series of reasons for believing that there is a “Law of Nature”_ that there is “real Right or wrong”.
Ans.
In this
essay, “Right and Wrong” LEWIS tells us that every person is aware about right
and wrong and wants to follow this standard behavior on every cost. Either any
person follows this standard or not, he bears in mind this standard and expects
it from other persons. He also utters that there is no need to teach this
standard to any person. To show the presence of real right and right, writer
provides lot of examples from the real life, which are given below.
He provides first
example that we listen that people are quarrelling with one another on
different issues and they complain one another on the breaking of standard of
behavior which is agreed among them. They say things like this: that is my
seat, I was there first”_ leave him alone, he is not doing you any harm”_ “give
me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine_ how would you like it if
anyone did the same to you? _come on, you promised.” Writer says that a person
appeals some kind of standard of behavior which he expects from the other
person. And other person does not say in reply, “to hell your standard.”
Instead of reply in this rude way, a person tries his best to realize the first
person that his act is not against the standard of behaviour and he will make
some lame excuses to prove his action. He will give some special reason to
prove why first person cannot keep seat, or that things were really different
when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which let
him off keeping his promise. This instance shows that both parties have some
type of morality or law of nature, which they are agreed and try to follow it.
This saves them to fight like animals. He also gives the instance of footballer
who makes commitment or agreement about the rules of football. If a footballer
does not agree on these rules, then here will be no sense in saying that a
footballer had committed a foul.
Writes provides
another instance to prove the law of nature by saying that in the past the
older thinkers called the law of Right and wrong the law of nature, it meant
the Law of human nature. The idea was that, just as falling stones are governed
by the law of gravitation and chemicals by chemical laws, in this way, man also
had his law. Great difference is that “the stones could not choose whether it
obeyed the law of gravitation, or not, but a man could choose either to obey
the law of human nature or to disobey it.” Those thinkers called it law of
nature because they thought that everyone knew it by nature and they had no
need to teach it to them. According to them “the idea of decent behaviour was
obvious to everyone” and it was right. If this idea was not right then World
War II was nonsense.
Another instance
is given by writer to prove law of nature. He says that a man who says that he
does not believe in a real right and wrong. You will find the same man going
back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try to
break on to him, he will be complaining: “it is not fair”. Then writer gives
another example. A nation may say that treaties have no importance, but next
moment, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty which they
broke was unfair one. Then writer insists that if there is no concept of right
or wrong, then what is difference between fair and unfair treaty. By this
example, he proves that here is right or wrong and here is law of nature. Every
person is aware of it, but we break it and show different explanations and
excuses to hide it.
Writer provides
last reason to believe right or wrong. He says that we have failed to practice
ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all
sorts of excuses for us. You were really tired when you showed unfair behaviour
to your children. You were really busy in your business, so, you forgot that
work. If you did not fulfill your promise, your excuse would be that you were
very busy therefore could not fulfill it. These excuses are proofs that we
believe in decent behaviour. We break the law by our carelessness and make
excuses to shift the responsibility from us. We ascribe our good mood to our
own selves and our bad temper to excuses.
These reasons
prove that there is law of nature. Writer concludes that human beings, all over
the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way,
and can’t really get rid of it. He says second thing that human beings know the
law of nature; they break it intentionally.
Q2. What are his reasons for believing that the moral law is not simply an instinct?
Ans.
In this essay,
“Right and Wrong”, the writer “C.S. Lewis” points out that moral law is very
essential in every society and it is present in every society. There is no need
to tell anyone about the moral law, because, he is aware about it by his
nature. Everyone knows it by common sense, experience and observation of life.
If someone is educated or uneducated, he is much familiar about the standard of
behaviour with the people in the society. He proves this thing by providing
sufficient reason that moral law is present in every society and it is learnt
by everyone. Moral law or natural law is
contradictory from an instinct in the following way:
An instinct is an
inborn desire which is found in every person. It is very potent and strong. A
person cannot control it and is compelled to follow it because it is the part
of his body and man cannot live a normal life without fulfilling it. Eat;
drink, love etc are some instances of instinct. This is basic need of life
which is necessary to lead life. But on the other hand moral law is not inborn
desire. It is learnt by society, observation and common sense. It operates in community
and it touches the good sense of man. Man can live without following it
sincerely. Man has control on moral law.
An instinct is
related to a person. It deals with a single person, whereas, moral law deals
with persons and communities. Moral law is a sort of unwritten agreement
regarding human behaviour between two persons or two nations. Writer utters
this thing in this manner: “it looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had
in mind some kind of law or rule of fair play……about which they really agreed”.
Again he says, “You and he had some sort of agreement as to what right or wrong
are”
Moral law is
matter of choice. A person has choice to follow it or abandon it. It depends
upon a person what he wants. As writer says, “a man could choose either to obey
the law of human nature or to disobey it”. Stones and other natural objects are
compelled to follow the law of nature. They have no choice and cannot infringe
from it. But man, as superior being has choice to keep choice to follow or ward
off moral law. It is cause, that we watch people quarrel with one another on
different things, such as, “that is my seat, I was there first”_ “leave him
alone, he is not doing you any harm”_ “ how would you like if anyone did the
same to you?” , Because some people follow moral law and others not.
We can violate
moral law, whereas, we cannot violate an instinct. The basic reason is this,
that moral law is matter of choice and control of a man, on the other hand,
instinct is matter of compulsion and basic need. Writer proves this by saying:
“none of us are
really keeping the law of nature”. Again writer says, “We have failed to
practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people.” He says
that human beings “know the law of nature; they break it.”
In failure of
moral law, we use excuses, pretexts, interpretations and explanations to shift
the responsibility from our shoulders. We take support of these excuses to save
ourselves. Writer tells this point by expressing these lines. He says, “What he
has been doing doesn’t really go against the standard, or that if it does,
there is some special excuse.” Then says, “He pretends there is some special
reason in this particular case….” Writer again says about excuses, ““We have
failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people.
There may be all sorts of excuses for us.” An instinct is not this type of
matter. An instinct cannot be covered or shifted by excuses or interpretations.
Q.3. Is it right or wrong to cheat in the examination?
Ans
‘C.S Lewis’
says in the essay, “Right and Wrong” that every person is obvious to law of
nature. Every person expects some standard of behaviour from other person
because every person is aware and familiar about this standard. It is learnt by
common sense and observation of life. There is no need to teach it. Like this,
examination is also moral standard of human behaviour. Every person knows that
it is wrong to cheat in examination. Actually everyone agrees to this moral
principal. Even those people who cheat in the examination believe that cheating
is not the standard human behaviour. They themselves would never like being
cheated by other persons in any field of their lives. Nobody likes being
cheated and it means that cheating is altogether unfair and unjust.
Examinations are
a test of our knowledge or learning and through cheating one shows that he is a
better scholar than those who are not cheating and they are, in fact, better
scholars than he. We cannot assess the actual abilities and capabilities of a
person properly if he cheats in examinations. So cheating produces wrong
results. Now nobody likes wrong results for oneself.
Cheating in
examinations discourages hard-working and assiduous students who work hard
throughout the year to get good position in examination. But when a person who
does not come in the classes; don’t work properly, gets first position by
unjust and unfair means, this thing teases the industrious student and he
becomes depressed and abandons hard-working. He grasps that his assiduity is
futile and extravagant. It is grabbing of rights. It causes violation and fuss
in the society. People become terrorists and other criminals to get their right
and standard human behaviour.
By cheating in
examination, illegal people come up. These people get the jobs and posts by
corruption and bribery. Because those have no ability and power to run country
and institution, therefore, the whole set-up of institution and country
destroy. Here comes, in society, some type of disorder. The whole society and
institute annihilate by these illegal people. These people also support the
other crimes like corruption and favouritism etc to get their gains. They
continue this malpractice, and one day it becomes a mafia which high jacks the
society.
Cheating in examinations produces inept,
unskillful, incompetent and inexpert people. These people cannot fulfill the
necessities of age, country and society, therefore the country goes back
instead of progression. Economy and institutions totally ruin. This thing makes
a country backward, illiterate and destabilized. Because incompetent people run the country,
so crime and criminals increase in the society. They establish themselves and
become particular danger for lives of people and stability of country. To hide
their incompetence, sometime these people support these criminals and sometime
become their slaves. Other countries get chance to enslave the country and
attack her, because illegal and incompetent people run the country.
Cheating also
promote class-distinction. Those people who have wealth, money and are well to
do, they can pass the examination by using their wealth. They can buy
superintendent and other crew, but poor person cannot do so, so wealthy people
come up and down-trodden goes down because they cannot show their intelligence.
This thing produces class-distinction in the society and gap among persons.
Cheater becomes
selfish, greedy, avaricious and self-centered person. He only thinks about
himself and don’t care the other fellows. Every time he has an axe to his own
grind. He becomes cruel, callous, and materialistic. He can do anything to get
his benefit. When this person goes up on high post, he shows irrelevancy to
society, public and country, because, he is selfish and can do anything which
he wants.
Cheating in
examination is moral-corruption and against the standard behaviour of human
beings and no one accepts it against oneself; therefore, it is wrong, unjust
and unfair. So we conclude by saying that cheating in examinations is altogether
wrong and it should not be practiced.
