Discussion - ‘The Abolition of Man’ by C.S. Lewis

Book Overview:

In this work (first published in 1943) C.S. Lewis argues for objective moral reasoning through a strong critique of overt rationalism which he contends, erodes all moral principles and foundations to the point that all one is left with is irrational personal preferences.

Discussion:

• How did you find the book? What were your first impressions? Would you be willing to have a go at summarising Lewis’ argument?  
• Let’s start with ‘Gaius’ and ‘Titius’, in Lewis’ mind, what is their great crime? Where does this sort of reasoning lead?  
• How do they end up in this philosophical quandary?   
  • The role of literary criticism                                              
    • Difficult to attack bad use of emotion in literature on the basis of rationality alone 
  • Their view of emotional propaganda                                                
    • Rather than ‘inculcate just sentiments’ they seek to cut away all sentiments 
  • The decline of objective moral reasoning (‘all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could either be congruous or incongruous to it – believed, in fact, that objects did not merely received, but could merit, our approval, or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.’)                                                
    • Emotions thus stand alone, ‘they cannot be either in agreement or disagreement with Reason’.

• How does this play out in the example of dulce et decorum est?  
  • They either have to accept it as unreasonable and debunk it  
  • Or, they have to produce, from outside, a sentiment to motivate action simply because it is useful (utilitarian) 
• What impact does this have on personal and public virtue? What does C.S. Lewis mean by the phrase ‘Men without Chests’? 
• Gaius and Titius’ reasoning leads to scepticism and an attack on ‘the parasitic growth of emotion, religious sanction, and inherited taboos’ but, Lewis argues, they are not nearly consistent enough to debase their own values. What do they build their moral reasoning on instead? How profitable and durable is this ‘new’ framework?  
• What is the ‘Tao’ and why is Lewis so keen to defend it? Is this an inherently reactionary view? Why/Why not? What space is there for moral development and progress?  
• If we step outside the ‘Tao’, Lewis argues we have no values, therefore what we ought to do depends on what we want to do, which leads not only to the conquest of nature, but to the conquest of man himself. Explain Lewis’ theory here.  
• Lewis posits this leads to conditioning and a heightened role for the ‘Conditioners’. What does this look like? What impact does this have on moral reasoning? 
  • Subjectivity  
  • Emotivism 
  • Irrationalism 
• The conquest of Nature is so extensive that ultimately, we reduce our own humanity to the level of mere Nature. What does this mean for the definition and identity of humanity? How does this play out in society?  
• How does Lewis propose a way forward?