Three Parts of Morality

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for….

Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis

Many people see morality as something that gets in the way of a good time – like God, seeing people enjoying themselves, trying to stop this. Lewis describes morality as rules for running the machine – the human machine.

Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.

Some like to consider morals as ideals rather than rules, or moral idealism instead of moral obedience. Of course, moral perfection is an ideal – something that we can never achieve. Yet, just because this moral perfection is unachievable does not mean that there is no such thing as moral perfection.

Human behavior can go wrong in two ways: one is when we drift apart from or collide with another human being, and by doing so, cause damage. The second is when things go wrong only within the individual – within me, or within you.

But then, there is something more: just what is this “wrong.” In other words, as noted in the opening quote: is there such a thing as “wrong” if there is no general purpose for the being?

You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two.

I will suggest here that Lewis is giving modern people too much credit. Yes, at best, we consider moral behavior in regards to how we treat others, but only in the negative sense. Do not hit, do not take my stuff. Beyond this, we are free to drift apart from each other; this, Lewis included in his first part of morality but I find excluded in our current understanding of morality.

Having said that, he is correct that it goes no further: Lewis’s second part – when things go wrong inside me – we do not consider as part of morality. What I do with and to my body has nothing to do with morality; after all, I am not harming anyone else by such behavior.

Lewis explicates this with an analogy: imagine a fleet of ships. Yes, they must be careful about the relationship one to another, but each ship must also be in good working order. If either of these factors is absent, ships will collide one with another.

In other words, a malfunctioning ship cannot help but collide with another in the fleet; in the same way, a malfunctioning human cannot help but collide with other humans. Modern morality will say that it does not matter what my ship is like on the inside, although what my ship is like on the inside will determine if I ram into another ship in my fleet.

In any case, as long as we stick to the first thing, or at least the negative aspect of the first thing – don’t hit first, don’t take my stuff – there is little disagreement about morality. Most people will say honesty is moral, murder outside of self-defense is immoral, etc.

…if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all.

Disagreement begins when one considers the morality within – don’t tell me how to live, don’t tell me what to do, I am not bothering you, etc. But without considering this, there is no possibility of the first thing in morality to hold. Is it possible for the ships to avoid colliding if the gears are not running properly, the rudder is not attached, etc.?

You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.

So, this tackles the first two parts of morality as Lewis sees it. What of the third part, the general purpose of human life as a whole? Here, Lewis offers that different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors. And depending on which of these different beliefs one believes, one will derive different answers as to the general purpose of the human life.

But why can’t we just carry on with the morality that all people believe? Lewis himself demonstrated just such a reality in the appendix of The Abolition of Man, listing common moral precepts found in many cultures and in many times of history.

But this isn’t enough: does it not make a difference if I am the landlord of my own mind and body or if I am a tenant? Does it not matter if my life is only the years here on earth of if it is eternal? There isn’t a middle ground on these foundational beliefs – they are either true or false, one or the other. The answers to such questions – with different answers offered in different religions, or in the absence of what we might call religion – will make a difference as to how we understand our general purpose as humans.

It is in dealing with this third issue where we will find the most difference between Christian and non-Christian morality. And because of this difference, we find differences on the view about the second part of morality – what goes on in my body is my business’ anything goes as long as I don’t harm anyone else. And because of these differences in the second part, we are unable to hold to even the first part.

Conclusion

And this comes down to the issue. It is the third part of morality that gives us the target at which to aim, to know what is good and what is not, to know what is moral and what is not. Lewis rightly presents his argument from the most widely accepted parts of morality to the least, but we live based on how we understand things the other way around: what is our purpose? The answer to this question will lead us to the answers of the first to parts of morality.

Ultimately, this is a religious question. Which is why it is a foundational building block in Lewis’s book of Mere Christianity.

Epilogue

I have written quite a bit about this question at my other blog. To make a very long story short, the Christian answer to that question: our purpose is to love; other-regarding action. To love God and love our neighbor. In other words, to live like Christ.