人類本性的規矩

Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis

1943

Bill Lin 譯

Book I. Right and Wrong As A Clue to The Meaning of The Universe

Chapter 1. The Law of Human Nature

人類本性的規矩

每個人都聽過人們吵嘴；有些聽來可笑，有些聽來令人不悅；但是不管如何，我們都可以從他們所說的內容，學到某些很重要的東西。他們是這麼說的：

「如果別人也都這樣子搞你，你會喜歡嗎？」

「那是我的位子，我是先到的。」

「由他去吧，他又没傷到你。」

「你為什麼先動手呢？」

「分我一些橘子，我以前都給過你。」

「嘿，這是你答應過的(不可反悔)。」

不論是否念過書，是大人或小孩，大家每天總是在吵這些東西。

從所有的這些言論裡面，令我感到有趣的是：說這些話的人，不只是因為對方的行為使他不悅，他是在申訴一些行為的規矩。他預料對方心知肚明，也不太會回答：「沒這個道理！」

對方幾乎總是試著辯白，他的所作所為，不是真的要觸犯這個規矩；假若是觸犯了，總是有一些特殊的藉口。他假裝在這個特別的事件裡，有些特殊的理由：為什麼先佔有這個位子的人，不應該保有它；或者情況跟他被分享橘子的時候，已經大不相同了；或者某些事情發生了，使得他不需要去守他的諾言。

實際上看來，很像是雙方在心裡都已經有某種他們都真正同意了的法規，或公平遊戲，或正當行為的規則，或道德，或是你喜歡怎麼叫它的。他們是有這個規矩的。假如他們沒有，當然，他們可能會像動物般的打起來，因為動物無法用人類的話語的方式理論。理論就是試著要顯示對方是錯的。除非你和他有了某種有關什麼是是非對錯的協議，試著要理論就沒有意義了；正如要指責一個足球隊員犯了規，除非先同意了這個玩足球的規則，要不然，那指責就沒意義了。

現在，這個有關是非對錯的規矩或法則，被慣稱為本性的律。在這些日子裡，當我們談到“自然律”我們通常意味著有些東西像萬有引力，遺傳，或化學定律。但是當古代的思想家，稱呼是非對錯的律為“本性的律”他們真正意味著人類本性的法則。這想法就是，正如所有的肉體都被萬有引力定律所管轄，有機體organism被生物的定律所管轄，所以被稱為人的生物，也有他的法則—只是有個大大的不同，一個人體不能選擇是否要服從萬有引力定律，但是一個人可以選擇是要服從人類本性的律或違抗它。

我們可以用另一個方式來說：每個人在每一刻都被好些組的法則控制著，但是這些法則裡面只有一個，他可以自由的不去服從。像一個身體，他被萬有引力轄制著，不能違背它；假若你留他在半空中，他沒有多餘的選擇，只會像塊石頭般的掉下來。像個有機體，他被幾許不同的生物的定律轄制著，他只能像個動物般的不能不服從。那就是，他不能不服從他跟其他的東西一起共享的那些定律；但是這個特地給他的人類的本性的律，這個他沒有和動物或植物或無生物共享的律，就可以不服從，假如他要做這樣的選擇。

這個律被稱為本性的律，因為人們想到，每個人生來就知道它，不需要被人教。當然，他們並不是說你不會在這裡或那裡找到一個怪人，而他不知道這個律，正如你會發現一些色盲，或音聾的人。但是拿種族當成一體來看，他們想，人類的正當行為的想法對每個人來說是很明顯的。我相信他們是對的。假若他們錯了，那我們所說的所有有關戰爭的事情都是廢話。有什麼意思去說敵人是錯的，除非“對”是個真正的東西，同時納粹的基層跟我們都知道而且都實踐了呢？假若他們對於我們所謂的“對”沒有概念，雖然我們或許還必須跟他們打仗，但我們或許只能責怪到他們頭髮的顏色了。

我知道有些人會說：一個本性的律的想法，或是所有人類皆知的正當行為是不堅固的說法，因為不同的文明和不同的時代，有過很不同的道德。

不過這想法是錯的。他們在道德之間是有些不同，但是這些差異從未能達成類似全盤的不同。假如有人不怕麻煩來比較道德的教導，比方，古埃及、巴比倫、印度、中國、希臘和羅馬，真正會使他留下印象的，就是他們互相之間是如此的非常相似，跟我們自己的也是一樣。在我的另一本書《The Abolition of Man》的附錄裡記下了這麼一些證據；但是為了我們現在的用意，我只需要問問讀者，想想看，一個完全不同的道德是什麼情形。假設一個國家，他們的百姓很讚揚打仗時逃跑，或是一個人對於出賣所有對他很友善的人感到很驕傲。你也可以想像有個國家，2 + 2 = 5。人們或許對於你應該如何不自私的對待什麼樣的人會有不同 —不論只是你的家庭，或是你的同胞，或是每一個人。但是他們一向都同意，你不應該只先考慮自己。自私從未被讚許過。人們對於你應該有一個或四個老婆有不同的看法；但是他們一向都同意，你不能隨便佔有任一個你喜歡的女人。

最好玩的就是：任何時候，你總會碰到這種人，說他不相信有真正的是非對錯，但是你會發現，一陣子以後，他就會打自己的嘴巴。他或許對你食言，但是假如你對他不守承諾，他立刻(在你來得及喊Jack Robinson之前)就埋怨：「這不公平。」一個國家可能說條約沒什關係，但是下一分鐘，他們就踐踏這個案子說：「這個他們想要違反的特別條約，是個不平等條約。」但是假若條約沒什關係，而且也無所謂的是非對錯—換句話說，假若沒有本性的律—一個平等條約和不平等條約有什麼差別？他們不就是讓貓從袋子裡跑了出來(洩底了)了嗎？不管說什麼，他們都知道那任何其他的人都知道的本性的律嗎？

看來，我們是被逼得去相信一個真正的是非對錯。人們有時或許會把它們給弄錯了，就像人們有時會把算術的總和給算錯了；但是它們並不只是比99乘法表多一點的口味和意見。現在如果我們都同意那一點，我就繼續說下一點：我們之間沒有一個人真正的遵守本性的律。如果在你們之間有任何的例外，我對他們致歉。他們最好去讀其他的作品，因為我正要說的，和他們無關。現在讓我們面對剩下的普通人。

我希望你們不會誤解我正要講的。我不是在講道，而且上天知道，我沒有假裝比任何其他人好。我只想提醒大家注意一件事實；這個事實就是今年、或這個月，或，最有可能就是今天，我們沒有實踐那種我們期盼其他的人該做的行為。我們可能有各色各樣的藉口。那時你對那些小孩們不公平，是因為你太疲勞了。那個對於金錢有些不乾不淨—這一個你已經幾乎忘記的—是因為那時手頭很緊。還有你答應過某某老先生要做卻從未做完的事，如果你早知道你將會這麼忙，你就不該做這個承諾。還有你對你的老婆(或老公)，或姊妹(或兄弟)的行為，如果我早知道他們是那麼的難纏，我絕不會去碰它—誰叫我是Dickens，倒楣？我正是如此。那就是說，我沒有好好地遵守本性的律，每當任何人告訴我，我沒有遵守它，我的心裡就開始了一連串的藉口，跟你的手臂一樣長。這時候的問題不在於它們是不是好藉口。重點是，它們是另一個證明，不論我們喜不喜歡，我們是如何深深的相信本性的律。如果我們不相信正當的行為，我們為什麼需要急於為了沒有做出正當的行為找藉口？事實上，我們很相信正當的行為—我們感覺到那規矩或律法督促我們要如此—所以我們無法承受面對我們正在違犯它的事實，以致於我們想逃避這個責任。因為你察覺，只有為了我們的不好的行為，我們才會去找所有這些的解釋。只有把我們不好的氣質歸罪於累了，煩了，或餓了；把好的氣質都歸功於我們自己。

這些是我所得到的兩點看法：

第一，遍佈全球的人類，有這個希奇的想法：認為他們的行為必須遵照某種方式而行，而且真的無法擺脫它。

第二，實際上他們並沒有照著那方式去做。他們知道本性的律；卻違背它。

這兩個事實是有關我們自己和我們所居住的宇宙的所有明確的思考的基礎。

********************************************************

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this:

"How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"

-"That's my seat, I was there first"

-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"

-"Why should you shove in first?"

-"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"

-"Come on, you promised."

People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grownups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise.

It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body 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.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in midair, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says 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 breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money-the one you have almost forgotten—came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done-—well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it—and who the Dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

*