A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Lewis on morality and the State

Here’s an interesting one, to Mrs. Edward A. Allen, February 1, 1958:

I quite agree with the Archbishop that no sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? — a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-servers, whose opinion on a moral problem in one’s life we shd attach very little value to. Of course many acts which are sins against God are also injuries to our fellow citizens, and must on that account, but only on that account, be made crimes. But of all the sins in the world I shd have thought homosexuality was the one that least concerns the State. We hear too much of the State. Government is at its best a necessary evil. Let’s keep it in its place.

I don’t agree with Lewis that homosexuality is a sin, but his view here is pretty progressive all things considered. Elsewhere he talks about defending gay people from the interference of “snoopers and busybodies” (letter to Delmar Banner, May 27, 1960). It’s clear that one of the things Lewis loathed the most was the moral busybody; he wrote in God in the Dock that

of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I think Lewis was in many ways an old-fashioned liberal who wanted the State to mind its own business and leave him to mind his. Here he’s enunciating a version of J.S. Mill’s harm principle: that the State is only justified in using force against someone to prevent harm to others.

This is a kind of libertarianism, or at least classical liberalism, but one based more on man’s fallen nature than on his intrinsic goodness like you get with the techno-utopian brand of libertarianism. Liberty is important not because people can be trusted to always do the right thing, but because it creates a sphere that protect us from other people’s moral certainties.

6 responses to “Lewis on morality and the State”

  1. I heartily agree with Lewis–the tyranny of the moral busybody is one I’ve known in my life and God help us all if they were in charge of everything. I’ve mentioned before that our own governmental structure is founded in a realistic assessment of humanity–original sin, hence, checks and balances, diffusion of powers, etc.

  2. I believe Lewis also said the homosexuality in the public schools was the most human activity going on there, because it was motivated by a human need for emotional comfort rather than the satanic love of power. In general, he said that the “sins of the flesh” were far less important than sins of the spirit, like spiritual pride.

  3. Just as you say, the view in the first quote looks like Mill from On Liberty. Interesting.

    As for the question of homosexuality, the professed point of Mill’s harm to others criterion was to legally enable “experiments in living” (today we would call these “life styles”) that would be firmly condemned by common moral opinion.

    Who can doubt homosexuality was one of the experiments he had in mind?

    Any reader of his can verify that Mill’s apparent chief concern, in discussing and defending his harm principle, was to defend that sphere of personal liberty that is today the characteristic concern of sociolibs.

    It’s not his only concern in On Liberty. He also writes much there in defense of freedom to express unpopular opinions in speech and the press.

    But it is a leading concern, and the main issue he has in mind in those parts of the book where he first raises and most directly discusses the harm principle.

    Libertarians, however, invoke this principle not only to defend social liberalism (the very thing Mill had primarily in mind for it) but to defend the free market (which Mill also defended, but not in this book or with this principle).

    It’s rather a suprise, considering their views on the real impact and totally unfree nature of “free markets,” that no progressive has taken up the challenge of arguing the harm principle works in defense of sexual liberty, but not in defense of the unregulated market economy libertarians prefer.

    Particularly in an age in which very nearly no progressive is not a sociolib.

  4. I’ve not read Mill on political economy, but my understanding is that he modified his early more pro-market views quite a bit in favor of a “steady state” economy with a significant amount of redistribution. Maybe the connecting thread is his utilitarianism? It’s not too hard to see how “the greatest good of the greatest number” could come into conflict with libertarian intuitions about inviolable rights, etc.

  5. “I don’t agree with Lewis that homosexuality is a sin” Have you ever posted anything on this issue particularly? I tried looking through your categories but I didn’t have any luck. Thanks.

  6. I have been studiously avoiding that topic for the most part! πŸ˜‰ Partly this is becuase so many other people are talking about it and I don’t really feel like I have much to add.

    The closest I think I ever came to addressing it is here:

    https://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2004/12/02/possibly-the-only-time-ill-ever-post-on-homosexuality/

    and here:

    https://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2005/06/09/sex-and-sanctification/

Leave a reply to eatingwords Cancel reply