It is, I think a bit rash to claim that morality has some concrete and absolute system behind it. In my experience morality is something the human mind comes up with in reaction to experiences, teachings, and the like. For many people it also comes out of their religion. The bible does nothing but spell out morals for believers as many religious books do. I have known many people who do not believe in God, but still believe, understand, and try to do what the bible asks of us, aside from the serving God part of course.
Lewis says “our instincts are at war,” and at first I was seeing this two different ways. One, that our must mean humans as separate beings and that we are at war with each other. I can totally see what he was meaning if this were the case because we are constantly challenging each other’s motives, and judging. Not to mention that we are terrified of being judged ourselves. People have morals and everyone, no matter who, no matter where, no matter when, EVERYONE wants to be right. The other idea about this conclusion is that our means our individual selves and we are at war internally. This is true indeed. I think all of us have so many ideas of how we should act, and that sometimes, or for me, a lot of times, conflicts with something we have previously learned to or no to do.
Long story short I think Lewis is right and wrong. Ironically I think we must judge for ourselves according to what our morals are like and what those of the people around us are like. The older I get, the more of humanity I see. And the more humanity I see, the more I think that there will never be one norm. We will never be able to agree on one constant idea. Thus we will never be able to define a moral absolute.

This was definitely an interesting read, although at times it was hard to understand what exactly Lewis was getting at. In this section, entitled “The Way,” he makes a logical attack at the philosophy that Gaius and Titius hinted at in their “Green Book.” He starts out with the claim that “The practical result of education in the spirit of The Green Book must be the destruction of the society which accepts it.” This is quite a bold statement, and I’m not sure the situation is as dire as Lewis makes it out to be, but the destruction of emotion in favor of rationality would certainly be a great loss to the world.

Lewis then goes on to consider the implied proposal that morality is an intrinsic, instinctual human attribute, which has evolved through the course of time. This portion of the book draws parallels to Wilson’s essay. He makes arguments against the “innovator” who would do away with the “Tao.” I have to commend Lewis here for his thoughtfulness in coining a term that essentially refers to all forms of religion, rather than naively assuming that Christianity is the only religion that promotes any kind of ethicality or morality, as many Christians seem to. In his defense of religion, emotion, and traditional morality, Lewis uses an unlikely weapon: his brain. He points out the faults and contradictions in the arguments of the innovator by using his most touted weapon against him, which is interesting.

One intriguing example he used was this: if we do away with emotions such as compassion in favor of rationality, where does the selfless hero come in? Who is to defend the overall good of the community if all we have is rational argument? The innovator’s argument falls apart here, because no one would come to the conclusion that they should be the one to risk their life for the good of society through logic alone. I found Lewis’s approach here intriguing, because the cerebral world of science does tend to get caught up in itself, and ignore the really big questions that every human needs to know at some point in his/her life.

In the second chapter of Lewis’ Abolition of Man, Lewis brings up the subject of instincts and its influence on human behavior. The way I understood it, Lewis believes that instincts are a fundamental system some people use to develop their values, apparently another theory separate from the Gaius and Titius beliefs. Although instinct begins as a compilation of unconscious reflexes, it later develops into conscious reactions based on the influence of our upbringing and interaction with other people.

I completely disagree with the idea that Lewis suggests in this chapter. I don’t believe that instincts are or can be influenced by society, specifically because they are innate unconscious impulses. Personally, I believe that these are survival techniques built into our genetic code and therefore cannot be altered by mere actions. The reason Lewis believes that instincts can be changed is because he doesn’t realized that what is actually occurring is suppression by the conscious state of mind. For example, I am sure that everyone has realized that appearance becomes less of a factor as more alcohol is consumed. That is because one of our basic instincts is to procreate and, as our conscious self deteriorates, our instincts are free to rule our actions. Hence, the only way to actually alter our instincts is through genetic mutations.

The thing that confuses me about instincts as it relates to the Abolition of Man is what Lewis is suggesting we do about our instincts. Is he saying we should abandon our instincts because they are tainted with the influence of others and, therefore, unreliable because they are not of our own reasoning? If so, are supposed to replace it with logical reasoning because the resulting actions are closer to our actual intentions? Well, I will say that we cannot possibly get rid of our instinct because it is the foundation of our survival. Without these impulses, humanity would not have flourished as it has.

I really do not know what Lewis’ intentions were within this chapter, but I will say that if Lewis were as convincing as Walker Percy, this would be a much easier and faster reading.

I got through AOM part 2, but it took me a while. It’s a lot harder to read then Percy. I did get through it though, and it got me thinking about Tao. I remembered that Taoism was an Eastern religion or philosophy from high school geography, but I didn’t remember much about it so I looked it up, and compared it to the way Lewis uses it. There are some similarities, but there are also some differences.
In Taoism, the Tao (meaning “way”) is seen as the natural, complex, and beautiful force guiding the universe and the goal of the Taoist is to harmonize himself with that force. The universe is seen as having a path unfolding before it and the goal of every man should be to walk on that path as it is, rather than try to change it. Taoism argues that the nature will unfold by itself in the way it is meant to, and that unfortunately the most common way for a man to get something he wants is by force, rather than following the way. All mankind’s troubles on Earth stem from having lost the Tao, and mankind’s ultimate goal should be re-harmonizing itself with that force.
Lewis, I think, uses Tao in a less religious way and more of a philosophical way. He equates Tao to Natural Law and Traditional Morality. I think it’s interesting how he talks about Tao, as a whole, being unchangeable. The first time I read that part of AOM, I disagreed with it. However, I then reread the part where he talks about how the various ideologies of our time and the flawed moral systems can be seen as only a portion of the Tao taken out of context and blown out of proportion. It makes sense, because then what that really becomes is an argument against extremism of any form and for the search for the golden mean.
This was definitely an interesting read, albeit not easy to do. It had some fascinating ideas, but I’m not quite sure I’ve become accustomed to Lewis’s style yet. I’m looking forward to/dreading reading the third part.

In the second part of The Abolition of Man C.S. Lewis seems to poke fun at the idea that all of humans can function with all of the sentimentality taken out of their nature. I probably most agree with his argument that reasoning without sentimentality is a selfish point of view in that selflessness using the “Innovator’s” logic is irrational. “Why should I be the one to sacrifice?” a rational person might ask. Logic and rationality only aide in one’s own survival, not that of anyone else’s. However I do find flaw in his example of the individual sacrificing himself for the good of society. He argues that the rationality in the community would want an individual or group of individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of the community, and it is true that those chosen individuals might ask why it has to be them, and rationally so. But it seems to me that the Innovator’s argument might be that if every society had sentimentality/traditional values/ religiosity taken out of their psyche, there would be no need for one to sacrifice themselves. After all, C.S. Lewis is most likely talking about sacrifice in the case of war. But if both sides were following the “Innovator’s” logic, would there be a war in the first place? War after all is irrational in that it risk the destruction of both sides. C.S. Lewis, however, is probably making the very practical assumption that it would be impossible to get everyone in the world to use this reasoning, for that is exactly what it would take for the Innovator’s logic to work.
C.S. Lewis also makes the argument that thinking purely with rationality and with no sentiment completely takes away the values of courage and honor. After all, if one were to be faced with a challenge that required bravery, it would be more rational not to take the risk. Indeed, Lewis argues that pure rationality is merely thinking with nothing more than one’s own survival in mind. He could argue, and he does to some extent, that the only thing that separates humans from animals is the human attribute of sacrificing for others, of taking risks when they don’t have to, of looking out for other’s survival even before their own. Animals use logic without sentimentality to an extent, and are only concerned with their own survival. I think stating that taking the feeling out of reasoning turns a society completely selfish is Lewis’ strongest argument in the book so far. The greatest accomplishments after all, were quite often achieved not by people looking out for themselves, but by people fighting for others.

When speaking of the Tao Lewis says, “If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained.” I totally agree with this statement in that, if all of society gave up on any type of morality or instinct, all society would fall into a tizzy. If all the Tao is retained, and society keeps on keeping on, then the world will be able to keep the somewhat harmony intact that is present today. Instinct, although it is shown as controversial is something that I believe is not debatable. In this section, Lewis is trying to justify the fact that in all actuality, instinct is a question that has not been answered in most cases. Instinct is in fact something that is in your blood, that is your nature, and to question its validity is like questioning the essence of the Tao in itself. There are things that come naturally to one, like love.

In saying that the Tao is something that one must know and expand upon, it is easy to see that Lewis believes those who dissent against the Tao such as Gaius and Titius are heretics. Lewis says “The outsider knows nothing about the matter. His attempts at alteration, as we have seen, contradict themselves.” And later “From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao.” Here Lewis is establishing those who are trying to modify the Tao without knowing it as those who are unaware of its importance and overall contribution to the fluidity of existence.

I also felt that the end of the chapter was a way to move on to yet another lecture of something about the way that Titius and Gaius go against the Tao. Or in the case of Lewis, think they are going against the grain when really they are contradicting themselves. Hooray for the Tao and all it encompasses.

“The Way” serves as a sort of last flyover of one highway before heading in a new direction on another. Lewis must finish denouncing Gaius and Titius’ arguments for their fallacies before he can enter the world that they envisioned, but did not quite describe. Lewis ascertains that the existence of a motive at all inside of the writers is proof of the hypocrisy with which they are encouraging a valueless world.

However, I was confused as to which values Lewis wants to hypothetically eliminate. He speaks of instinct as the only set of universal values, so is he suggesting that we abandon even these in his amoral world? With no instinct, how can we “start doing what we like?” In eliminating instinct and still expecting motivation within the human mind at all, one is assuming, just like Gaius and Titius, that there is another set of even more fundamental values; Human Entropy, if you will. This is a possibility; it is not, however, the amoral world that Lewis is forecasting. If one assumes a moral hierarchy, starting with the overarching morals of the Tao, followed by human instinct, and finally bottomed with the arbitrary “bounce” of man’s instantaneous decisions, a construct begins to take shape, with a philosopher at the top, caveman in the middle, and an insane person at the bottom.

If we lay a floor on human values, we severely limit the sanctity and power of the brain. As an only child, I would occasionally play a sort of a game wherein I challenged myself to think of absolutely nothing, if only for a second. I never quite managed it, and finally concluded that I would only be capable of triumph in this task in the midst of sleep. Of course, this led to other questions, like “When exactly does one fall asleep? I can never remember…” A totally valueless world is an unconscious one, or as Lewis stated, “[a] death which cuts off every possible satisfaction…” I should like to think that the brain was powerful enough to bring itself into a virtual coma at will, but it is not. However, I don’t believe that this void in the human experience can be filled by merely a biological generator of random motivations.

In the second part of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, Lewis asserts that humanity derives behavior from a realm of objective, traditional morality known as the Tao. In his analyzation of the Tao and the behavior it promotes, he claims that in creating new values, the Tao cannot be discarded. Rather, new moral conducts must be “fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they possess.” Therefore, as humans, we cannot possibly create new morals just like we cannot possibly conceive a fourth dimension. Just as we are stuck in a three-dimensional world, Lewis believes we are stuck in a world in which all moral concerns boil down to the same principles, those which embody the Tao. I must disagree with this. Lewis cites such primal morals as wanting to keep the species alive or preserving society, but in the postmodern society in which we live, I find it hard to accept that the fundamentals of our morals have not changed. In fact, I believe the idea of “value” itself has dissolved. Thus, we have, in fact moved away from the Tao, as Lewis deemed impossible. Although we strive for objectivity, we are unable to assess value in our postmodern world. For example, consider a test like the SAT. The SAT is supposed to embody one’s intelligence through a series of numbers, but in reality, it only reflects one’s ability to take a test. We have failed to ask ourselves “why is this test important?, “What value does this test hold?” Thus, we have moved away from the essence of things, and started to treat people as machines, ones whose purpose is to have great efficiency and functionality. To boil this all down in to plain English, I sometimes get the feeling that the Tao has completely left us, that in a world in which everyone is so overly-indulged in their self, something like the Tao cannot possibly thrive. I can’t believe that there can be such a thing as a Tao in a world in which all objects are a product of perspective. As abstract and confusing as this response may be, it is what came to mind. Also, consider that CS Lewis wrote The Abolition of Man in anger over a schoolbook, then my ramblings about the SAT might not sound so crazy!

Instincts are interesting characters in the whole scheme of things. They are feeling, actions, and thoughts you are supposedly born with that stay with you throughout your life. In a biological sense, instincts are important to an animal’s survival. In geese, the baby geese follow the first thing they see when they open their eyes after birth. This is an instinct, and a good one too considering the first thing they usually see is their mother. In biological thought, we are taught that instincts are present to encourage the survival of the species, that they protect the species from impending dangers, or lack of food, or harsh conditions. Lewis says that “our instincts are at war.” This is an interesting statement since I have never thought of it in that way before. Which instincts do we consider more important? Are certain instincts better then others? It seems as though different species have different instincts and even different individuals of the same species have different instincts. Is one instinct more important then another or are they all on the same plane of importance? Lewis also makes another interesting point in the topic of altruism. In nature, not one species has been found to be completely altruistic, but instead every action that was thought to be altruistic for an individual was found to actually benefit the individual in some way. I think our instinct is to protect ourselves and our loved ones, not necessarily the entire society as a whole. I don’t think I would have a strong feeling to protect someone half way around the world as I would my own family members. That is not pure altruism, because by protecting my family members I am protecting myself. I am avoiding hurting myself emotionally and genetically. In behavioral studies on instinctual behavior, it is found that family members usually help other family members and since the sole purpose an individual has is to promote the continuation of his gene pool this makes since. Perhaps instincts are a doctrine we subscribe to in order to encourage survival or our species, or perhaps only to encourage the survival of ourselves. Either way, instincts are confusing things. Where do they come from?

Ok, so I managed to find my way through chapter two and unfortunately, I have not yet changed my mind on C.S. Lewis’s writing style. I am not a fan. I will say however that I found chapter 2 more appealing and easier to read than the previous first chapter so I am still holding onto my complete thoughts until I’ve finished the entire book.

In my reading of this chapter, “The Way” one general theme ran through my mind; what the hay is the Tao? Is it this true doctrine that he keeps referring to? Is it a doctrine of values and instincts that should be accepted by all? Perhaps I am missing something that is staring me in the face but I could never get a good grasp on what was meant by its continual reference. I do agree with Lewis when he says “telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people’. People say different things: so do instincts.” To me these instincts Lewis refers to equates to the values he believes some people accept while others reject. I do believe it is important to have values that you trust and believe it. I also believe that a lot of the values people hold are similar yet different from one another. Each person’s values and instincts vary depending on how they were raised and their religions, i.e. people are as different as their instincts. Unlike what Lewis argues however, I do not agree that if you reject one value or instinct you reject them all or that you reject your belief in the value system. He writes, “You say we shall have no values at all if we step outside the Tao. Very well: we shall probably find that we can get on quite comfortably without them.” Not true. Even if one person’s set of values may differ from yours it doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong or that they are without values. I believe every person has a set of values or instincts that they cling to and these values or instincts are what help to mold the person into their self. The individuality that every person posses is not their willingness to accept values just because they feel they “ought” to. Instead I see everyone’s unique personalities as a compilation of values and instincts.