- Laws of Nature: Describe what nature does (not what it ought to do; only explains the observable facts)
- Law of Human Nature: Describes what men actually do (how they behave, the observable facts) as well as what men ought to do (moral expectations)
On the other hand, a man behaves in a certain way, but that is not the whole story because over and above his behavior are the expectations the rest of us have for his behavior; a feeling that he ought to behave a certain way and that he makes the choice whether to obey or disobey the standard. A person's behavior is not good or bad because of its inconvenience or usefulness to others but because of some external framework, some other kind of reality; as Lewis puts it, "a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us."
Here you might disagree and say that good or bad behavior is only based on whether the majority finds it acceptable or agreeable. You may feel that behaviors are determined to be good or bad based on their convenience or usefulness to others. In other words, you are more inclined to Moral Relativism, the idea that what is right for one may not be right for another, and what is wrong for your neighbor may be acceptable for you because it is all based on the individual and his/her ideas of good and bad. Lewis gives an incredibly simple (but rational) example of why this is not likely:
"A man occupying the corner seat in the train because he got there first, and a man who slipped into it while my back was turned and removed my bag, are both equally inconvenient. But I blame the second man and do not blame the first. I am not angry - except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses - with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. Yet the first has hurt me and the second has not."
Or does moral relativism make more logical sense?
Do we ever have the ability to say something is definitely right or wrong?