About 'The 8/13'

Back to DejaLewis Home Page

Note -- This is a rough draft. I'm putting it up hastily because the same question is being talked about in 3 different discussion groups I'm in! I'll probably later make different versions of this for different age levels, or something. And put in some links to answer objections and some more footnotes etc. Feedback welcome.

About the 8/13
by Mary Ezzell Š1997

I'm on three different internet fantasy literature forums that have been talking about whether there is any 'real right and wrong', or just personal preferences. I keep putting up posts about "The 8/13" and suggesting people read Lewis. Here's a summary of what I keep ranting about. : -)

Most of the following is based on a book(1) by C. S. Lewis, author of the Narnia series. But I'm putting it in my own words and modernizing it somewhat.

The very old traditional Graeco-Roman idea was: There is a /real, objective/ moral law, and it is very simple, and we all know it and love it already. It is so natural to us that many parts of it are sometimes called 'instinct'. Some of us know it by 'feeling', and some know it the same way they know math, or know beauty, or know a good story. It is so simple and natural, that many of us don't think of it as a 'law' at all.

Anyway, here it is(2). For convenience, it is divided into 8 parts, but really it is all one thing.

1. a. Be nice to everybody. Don't scare or oppress anyone. Don't be cruel. Don't make anyone cry.

1. b. Take care of the larger community. Enjoy society. Exchange and cooperate.

2. Be extra nice to your own family. Take special care of them, put family and friends ahead of strangers.

3. Respect elders and take care of them, especially your own parents and ancestors.

4. Take special care of children, your own and the community's.

5. a. Be honest in love. Keep faith with your partner. Don't be sneaky.

5. b. Be honest about property and money. Don't steal or cheat. Respect other's property, and respect public property.

5. c. Judges and people in court should be fair. Everyone should have equal legal rights. No favoritism.

6. Be truthful. Don't lie or cheat. Keep promises. Be loyal to associates. Don't be treacherous or sneaky.

7. Be soft-hearted. Be mild and gentle to anyone weaker. Help people in need. Never strike women.

8. a. Protect the weak. Don't allow violent attacks. Band together to stop bullies. Be brave and fight oppression and injustice. If necessary, fight back violently.

8. b. Death before dishonor. Don't do or think anything nasty or shameful. Be calm and cool, meditate.

8. c. Do not fear death. Never murder, suicide is for extreme situations only, but natural death is not to be feared.

This Code doesn't depend on religion. It turns up just the same among Christians, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and other groups, and always has, from the first history we know. Before the 17//?th century, the athiests and other non-religious philosophers believed in it also. Everyone all over the world accepted that these were the basic rules, and we should reason out the details from them -- sort of like starting with the 5/ basic axioms of gemoetry and reasoning out particular problems. These were the axioms that everyone took for granted.

Then in the //??? century, some theologians began saying things like, "If you believe in this //moral code/, you have to believe in Jehovah too. There could not be any Law without a Lawgiver." … "This code is only good because it is based on the Bible." …"Either you have to accept all that our church says, the complete package, or throw out your /objective/ code and just depend on your own /feelings/personal preferences." (3)

So for a long time the simple old Code was almost forgotten by the philosophers -- though it still lived in fairy tales and poems, and in fiction by people like Anthony Hope, L. M. Montgomery, E. R. Burroughs, L. Frank Baum, et al (and later C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien). (Who should I add to the list???)

Today, a great many people describe their own /moral codes/ as 'just personal preference', 'not a universal law', etc. But when they actually start comparing their 'personal' systems, the same basic ideas keep turning up. It seems to be the details (and especially the exceptions) that are the personal preferences. One way or another, almost everyone cares about all the basic 8 (or 13).

Notes:

1) _The Abolition of Man_

2) Appendix to _Abolition of Man_. I have reworded it and modernized the emphasis. For more on the original, see
http://pcacad.pc.maricopa.edu/pc/ss/phi101/VII/VII_D_Illustrations_of_the_TAO.htm

3) See http://www.savers.org/heritage/library/categories/theory/lect570.html . This is a lecture by David F. Forte. It is largely about current USA conservative politics, but includes some good concise history telling how the "Natural Law" came to be forgotten. Excerpts below:
<<<<<<
The Greeks, who gave us so much, gave us the natural law school of thought, particularly in the writings of Aristotle. Natural law was subsequently universalized by the Stoics, incorporated into the law by the Romans /snip/. The school of natural law championed man's reason, his being, his capacity for sociability, and his virtue. The values espoused by that school dominated Western thought through the end of the 18th century and were included in the principles of the American Founding. /snip/
In the high Middle Ages, the traditions of faith and reason reached their greatest level of integration in the natural law philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. /snip/ Then came the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the age of scientific inquiry.
The link between faith and reason was weakened, and eventually broken. The age of Reformation and Rationalism was launched. Faith sought to undo the shackles of reason, while reason tried to free itself of the shackles of religion.
Important Protestant theologians found the good solely through the will of God as revealed in His Word, while rationalists forsook natural law thinking as being too close to religion. The Reformation disparaged the Scholasticism of the high Middle Ages. God's law was divine positive law, and no natural law could independently find the good.
>>>>> From Heritage Lecture #570, A Russell Kirk Memorial Lecture, Delivered May 1, 1996
The Heritage Foundation Lectures and Educational Programs
"Eve Without Adam: What Genesis Has to Tell America About Natural Law"
By David F. Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University

====================================================================================

Back to DejaLewis Home Page