HaggisBasher Posted:

...considering he was smart enough to cover the case of negating his claim.

Before I begin. From:http://essayinfo.com/essays/persuasive_essay.phpDisprove the opposing argument. Understand the opposite viewpoint of your position and then counter it by providing contrasting evidence or by finding mistakes and inconsistencies in the logic of the opposing argument.

So no free points to C.S. for the counter-argument.

“But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.”

A good argument against it being instinctive, but it leads directly to the question of moral law as a societal phenomenon.

“If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win.”

One of many bumumption that are stated in this paragraph without support.

“Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call ‘good,’ always in agreement with the rule of right behaviors. But you cannot.”

Here I agree with the statement. Moral Law is not instinctive.

“The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. ... But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality…”

Flat wrong, you are measuring it against your ideal of morality. Do you think Hitler thought his moral law was immoral. No, he was witch hunting. (see below)