Some Lewis Quotes on Ethics

All are from Mere Christianity:

“One man may be so placed that his anger sheds the blood of thousands and another so placed that however angry he gets he will only be laughed at. But the little mark on the soul may be much the same in both. Each has done something to himself which, until he repents, will make it harder for him to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage worse when he does fall into it. Each of them, if he seriously turns to God, can have that twist in the central man straightened out again; each is, in the long run, doomed if he will not. The bigness or smallness of the thing, seen from outside, is not what really matters.”

“Good people know about both good and evil. Bad people do not know about either.”

“While the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific Islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’; proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies; and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). “

Why Is God So Narrow Minded About Sex?

It is good that C.S. Lewis brings up abstinence. Because in many parts of our society, abstinence isn’t a real option, or worse, an unethical demand. Jesus is the one who brought up abstinence in the first place, speaking of “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” by which he did not recommend castration, but rather the cessation of sexual activity. Even Jesus says, though, “The one who can accept it, let him accept it,” meaning, “Look this isn’t for everyone, and I know that it’s hard for most of you, but you don’t have to take on abstinence—you can always get married.” But we need to make it clear, as Lewis did, there are two options for Christian sexuality: faithful partnership or abstinence. That’s it. Both are options, and it isn’t like God didn’t give us a choice.

Let’s talk for a minute why Christian morality is so stuck in this way. It is pretty much because of how humanity is wired. First of all, we are wired in such a way that sexuality triggers attachment. Yes, you can always find someone who has no attachment to the various sexual partners he or she has had, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Even in a day of sexual freedom, almost everyone couples up. Very rare is even a regular ménage a trois, let alone a group marriage. For the most part, multiple partners doesn’t work. Again, there are the rare exceptions, but the general rule is, the more partners involved, the more hurt there is. Life is simple with one regular sexual partner, and, of course, more healthy.
And humanity is, for the most part, built that way. Sexuality functions as a method of attachment. This is why fetishes are so common, because sexuality is attached to an object in that case. When sexuality is used in a broad way, then fetishes will abound, and even become the norm, because sexual attachment is happening willy nilly. Sexual orgasm is intended to be with our partner, and thus we will firm up our attachment to our partner and not to something else. This does not mean that there aren’t other kinds of attachments. Our attachments to children and work can be just as strong if not stronger than our attachment to our spouse. But it is a powerful attachment, and it is triggered by sexual attraction and it is consummated in sexual climax. Birds and bees, folks, it’s pretty basic stuff.

Yet our society wants to deny this regular practice. They affirm it in romances and movies and books, but they deny it as a philosophy. They glorify sexual faithfulness and vilify it. And this is because all societies have had a love-hate relationship with faithfulness in general. To keep a promise once it’s made is hard and against the grain. To make a pact of unique faithfulness is often done without words, as Carole King wrote, “Tonight with words unspoken you say that I’m the only one.” But we do not speak the words so we have deniability, even as we can non-verbally express anger or agreement and then deny it because we never said it. Even so, the act of sex is a nonverbal pact of sole attatchment. And as long as it is nonverbal, we have deniability. And we want to keep that deniability, we want the freedom to be changeable, to withdraw our commitment.

Dan Gilbert on Happiness

Dan Gilbert speaks of a study done in a university about students who took a photography class. Each student was to pick their two favorite works that they did, one to keep, the other to ship away into an exhibit. One group of students was given some time to consider their options for a number of days. Other students were only given a moment and once the decision was over, that was it. In polling both sets of students weeks after, the first group were considerably unhappier with their choice than the second group. This is because we are often happier if a decision is final and we don’t have time to ruminate over it. We make ourselves happy with our choices, we are wired to be satisfied over what we cannot change.

Even so with sexuality. If we have made our partnership choice and we can’t change it, we will make the best of it and end up being happier. We are happier when we don’t have an option to switch. But the history of human sexuality is the attempt to have more sexual choices along with the opportunity to change whenever we want. But, in the end, this isn’t what will make us happy. Happiness is found in security, in a certain amount of structure, and, especially, knowing that we can’t change our minds to get something else.

God made us this way. And while we might like this decision making process, it is how we are.

Lewis on Giving to the Poor

C.S. Lewis wrote about giving to the poor, but he also lived it out. All of the royalties for his books-- including the Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity-- he gave to the poor. And he also had a set amount from his salary as a professor from Oxford which he used for his living expenses and the rest he gave away. I don't know exactly how much he gave away, but it was substantial. We should consider this as we read these quotes:

“When Christianity tells you to feed the poor, it doesn’t give you lessons in cookery.”

“Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce this kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality.

“I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc, is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.”