....Then, What are we Fighting About?

Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later ----C.S. Lewis

Today is a first in the line of many "dissections" of C.S. Lewis quotes. Why, you may ask, would I choose C.S. Lewis? Because I believe he had a great way of breaking down topics such as Religion, Philosophy and Logic and making them infinitely accessible to the "every-man." His brilliance lies, not only in his intellect, but in his ability to make the most difficult themes seem so simple. Lewis was an Atheist turned Christian and has/had a great view of the world that is very seldom seen, a view from "both sides" of an issue. This is why I adore C.S. Lewis.

Now as for the quote above, isn't this just so very true? Any discussion/debate I've ever had about a "firm Right and Wrong," has usually included a "subjective" view of Truth or Right from the other person, and a more "objective" view of Truth or Right on my part. (Not that I believe I'm the only one who has an objective view, mind you) Evolution and the thought processes driving this theory have "muddied the intellectual waters," so to speak, for many people. "Much as the earth and man have been shaped and molded and changed over millions of years of time," the Evolutionist would say, "so, too, has our society and our ideologies." Meaning, that our view of Right and Wrong, what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, is subject to change.

While fashions and fads come and go, is there not something inherently flawed with the idea that we can change Truth and Right and Wrong as though we are changing clothes? That any "previous" idea of truth can change with the times much like a style of pants or shirts? Is Truth something that changes? For many, it is. They would argue that certain ideas are outdated and that my sense of Right and Wrong are old-fashioned, even archaic, and that I need to "get with the times." While this may be true for matters of taste and preference, can we really apply this same ideology to Right and Wrong? Even leaving out the "religious" connotations, this brand of reasoning flies in the face of simple logic and defeats the very point it tries to make. Without a firm basis for Right and Wrong, an intellectually honest person has to say that we have nothing to even speak about! We have nothing about which to "argue." How could there ever be an argument if there were no such thing as Right and Wrong? It is an impossibility. The same person who would say "There are no absolutes" doesn't even realize he is making an "absolute" statement. It is this kind of reasoning that purports to be "enlightened" and "intellectual," but as we dig even a little beneath the surface we realize they are in and of themselves impossible logical arguments to make.

The point, you ask? The point is, that it only takes a tiny bit of sound, logical reasoning to debunk the "modern, so-called enlightened" thinker. Where would we be without absolutes? How could you build a building? Why even go to school? Why go to work? Why, then, without absolutes, do we exist at all? If there is no "Right and Wrong," then what on earth are we fighting about? What are we here for? We must stand firm on absolutes; after all that is why they are there.