Poisen of Subjectivism

I would begin by describing Lewis’s work as good work, but perhaps I am being subjective. I would imagine that Lewis may smirk, rebuttal my intro with the question of how do I know his essay is good or bad for that matter, thus once again leading into his creative instinct to incite provocation of thought and stimulation of mind.
Since there are so many points both stated and eluded to in the essay I by no means wish to write any sort of summery, for both the preservation of my own time as well as to not risk leaving any important parts out. What I would like to do is give what I consider to be several interesting and thougt provoking concepts.
First I enjoy Lewis’s re-submersion into the practicality and logic of having or realizing a moral standard or law, which must be void of subjectivism. Lewis states that “the whole attempt to jettison traditional values as something subjective and to substitute a new scheme of values for them is wrong. It is like trying to lift yourself by your own coat collar. Such analogy is not only humorous, but also practical. Lewis then breaks down two propositions about the moral Law. First that we cannot invent new values, and second when we try we just take one maxim of traditional value and throws out the rest, making one more powerful than the other. In such errors Lewis compares the reformers the only support of the particular branch he wishes to retain.
My second favorite part of the essay was Lewis’s insight into progress, and how it fits in so well with the natural or moral law. Lewis stated that it was impossible for there to be any progress of there was not in fact a standard to work from. Lewis supported this statement with the brilliant analogy of if a train is trying to reach a specific point it must be a fixed point, and not another train, otherwise neither train would ever get closer to the other. Just like progress if everything is subjective that there is nothing to base anything else on.
Finally, I would like to focus on what I thought was the most difficult part or idea in the essay. I found the difficulty as to how Lewis incorporates the Fall. The difficulty here is understanding where mans perception of the moral law fits in with the divine will of God. I think what is important to remember is that God gave us the law in the Ten Commandments. These commands are separate, but each one of them is connected to the other, so that if one is broken they are all broken. What often eludes people is that there are two parts of the Ten Commandments; one part is based on the neighbor and the other on God. Therefore if your heart, soul mind, and strength do not love completely the Lord you have broken one of the commandments, and therefore have broken them all. So where do we stand. A breakdown of exactly how the law fits in the scheme of existence is as follows. Humanity has a craving for joy, such joy was found in Eden, but lost in the fall. The moral law is a product of sin and is the only way back to this joy, but what a loss without Christ we cannot keep it. Outside of Christ we always try to fulfill this law ourselves, not (as commanded in the commandments) to the glory of God. Sadly such works are then relinquished as good. They may be perceived as morally right to us, but with God absent from the equation so is “good”. So we may as Lewis states being able to perceive what is right and what is morally wrong, but as far as being good, without God our effort in the moral law “are before God as filthy rags”.
Now as we view such theology and such Biblical liturgy, how does subjectivism fit in? When we look at the law it must not be dismissed or changed to fit our own desires or bias. When subjectivism takes a hold of the moral standard it not only distorts it, but opens the door to the perception that it no longer exist. We must constantly cling to Christ and scripture as our only standard, and never let ours or anyone else’s subjectivism cloud that standard.