Blog Post 2

“However much you improve the man’s raw material, you have still got something else: the real, free choice, of the man, on the material presented to him, either to put his own advantage first, or to put it last. And this free choice is the only thing morality is concerned with.”

- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Lewis makes a lot of claims in Mere Christianity, but few of them are emphasized as much as this one. Although his argument for relative morality is somewhat short, his views on “free choice” and his belief that actions should be evaluated based on whether a man puts himself first or others first comes up multiple times. However, to understand these beliefs, it is important to understand what Lewis meant by “raw material” and morality. Earlier in the section he illustrates his point with two men in a war. They both suffer from irrational fears about going to battle but they end up receiving psychoanalytical help and overcome their cowardice. Later though, one of the men uses his new found courage to help him perform his “duty” while the other man uses his courage to effectively hide himself and keep himself safe. Lewis then claims that the irrational fears of battle were psychological problems, which prohibited the men from performing their duties. As a result, they could not initially be judged for their actions because their irrational fears were beyond their control. However, he says that, after receiving help, the man who fought acted morally but the man who ran did not. Consequently, their irrational fear is their “raw material”, and their choices, once returned to a state of normality (a new “raw material”), are what their morality should be based on. Another example could be two different car crashes. In one car crash, for instance, the brakes could unexpectedly stop working and the driver would be forced to cause a collision. In another crash though, the driver could intentionally ram into another car to hurt someone. In the first instance the driver could not be held responsible for the crash because the car was out of control. On the other hand, the second driver would definitely be held responsible for his actions because his car was functioning properly and he chose to cause a crash. He was thinking only of himself when he caused the crash and, as a result, acted immorally.

If only it was that simple. In reality though, both the man and his raw materials are inseparable because of the Fall. Although Adam and Eve may have been able to choose whether or not to eat the forbidden fruit and although people may (arguably) be able to choose to become a Christian, the “free choice” of an individual to act for others instead of themselves (and thus act morally) is mostly wishful thinking. Instead, I believe, that because of man’s sinful nature, nothing is done but out of self-interest. For instance, say a person devotes twenty hours a week to feeding the homeless, working for a charity, evangelizing or doing some other supposedly magnanimous activity. It might appear that he is doing it all for other people, but it actually benefits him as well. In one case, maybe feeding the homeless, he would be losing his time and energy, supposedly giving it away for the sake of other’s. Instead it is simply a transaction. Whether consciously or not, he is exchanging his time and effort for love and acceptance (or a variety of other things) either from the homeless person or from the people he is working with. He and others may even think that he is volunteering simply because it is the “right thing to do” but because of man’s sinful nature he is still thinking of himself. No matter how disguised the social transaction is or how well hid the personal benefit (psychological or otherwise) is, we can never truly do something simply for the sake of doing good. We will always see the benefit to us. Thus the example of the two car crashes becomes irrelevant. In one instance the man made a decision to cause a crash and will generally be seen as immoral. However, the other car crash involved no decision, the man was more or less a bystander in a natural occurrence. Consequently, when Lewis gives the example of the two men going into battle, it is entirely possible that, by Lewis’s definition, the second man is just as moral as the first. The two men are both acting out of self-preservation; the second man just does not hide it. When that man goes to battle he runs because he is afraid that he will get injured. Meanwhile, the first man goes into battle and makes a calculated social transaction, exchanging his personal safety for acceptance and respect among members of his community. In the end then, judging a man on his actions and not his environment is impossible. Man’s sinful nature makes unadulterated goodness nonexistent and we ultimately cannot take into account every conscious and subconscious factor that went into an action. As a result, determining morality apart from an omniscient God is impossible, so we must rely on Scripture to evaluate a person’s actions - not whether they acted out of a sense of self-interest or whether their environment made their actions justifiable.