"No Right to Happiness," CS Lewis gives us the story of Mr. A in love with Mrs. B. Both of them have divorced their respective spouses to be together. Clare comments on the situation, saying that "They had a right to happiness," and making CS Lewis give his opinion on the matter.
"No Right to Happiness," takes the form of a commentary on the gender roles that society has accepted. On the concept of a "right to happiness," CS Lewis doesn't agree with Clare or Mr. A. Mr. A is exercising his legal right to divorce his wife. In this case, there is nothing to do with happiness. Lewis writes:
The ancestry of Clare's maxim, 'They have a right to happiness,' is august. In words that are cherished by all civilized men, but especially by Americans, it has been laid down that one of the rights of man is a right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. And now we get to the real point. What did the writers of that august declaration mean? It is quite certain what they did not mean. They did not mean that man was entitled to pursue happiness by any and every means - including, say, murder, rape, robbery, treason and fraud. No society could be built on such a basis.
They meant 'to pursue happiness by all lawful means'; that is, by all means which the Law of Nature eternally sanctions and which the laws of the nation shall sanction.
Lewis claims that when further explored, a right to happiness is actually a right to pursue happiness. This in turn makes the issue not just a legal one, but a moral one too.
But the question as to what means are 'lawful' - what methods of pursuing happiness are either morally permissible by the Law of Nature or should be declared legally permissible by the legislature of a particular nation - remains exactly where it did.
At this point, Lewis switches his approach towards gender roles in society and its views on sexuality. Lewis remembers people saying, "Let us treat sex just as we treat all our other impulses." To that, he responds, "Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege."
While it may be sort a tangent from the real issue, this reminds me of a message that was given at my youth group back at home. The speaker was talking about pre-marital sex and why it ruins marriages. From what I remember, a relationship was paired up with an action.
acquaintances = talk
friends = hold hands; hug
dating = kiss
married couple = sex
The speaker then said that most relationships fail because the action and relationship pairs are mixed up. When acquaintances or friends is where sex happens, what is left for the married couple? I may have some part wrong, but I hope you get the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment