Friday, March 27, 2020

Do people today assume a right to happiness? C. S. Lewis says we shouldn't.



bmiller said...

It's actually about "sexual" happiness. For those who were wondering if they should read it or not.

One Brow said...

I was not impressed by the way Lewis slanted the argument.

StardustyPsyche said...

Lewis's fixation on sexuality misses the other points he had himself made, very strange.

Lewis provides the reasons for the hypothetical divorces himself, yet seems fixated on the idea of the attractive force of the hypothetical remarriage as nearly solely sexual.

His general discussions about rights and happiness and the things that divorce is an affront to were quite interesting, but then he threw away the value of the groundwork he laid as he entered his rather strange sexual fixation.

Victor Reppert said...

I don't see a sexual fixation here. What Lewis is saying is that the sexual area is an area in which we are especially in danger of hurting one another, and that there have to be some moral rules that apply in this area just as there are in all other areas of human life. We make promises to be faithful in marriage, or, at least, some of us do. There are reasons why people do this. And the question then arises as to whether people should be obligated to keep those promises when the situation changes. For example, it can become medically inadvisable for one of the partners to continue to have sex. Does that mean the other partner has a right to seek out new partners, and the promise is null and void?

If you think the answer is "yes," listen to the words of Kenny Rogers' song "Ruby, don't take your love to town."