Kat Forbes: Outside Reading #2

Entry # 8: Lewis on Natural Law, article by David J. Theroux (Outside Reading #2)

Katherine Forbes 

 

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2846

 

In many of his essays and written works, Lewis describes a phenomenon familiar to American political thought known as ‘natural law’, that inescapable code of moral behavior defined by our conscience, otherwise known as the Tao.  Natural law plays a key role in many of his stories, for example Theroux theorizes in his paper that the Deep Magic of Narnia is a representation of natural law.  Lewis agreed with philosophers like John Locke that natural law is found through reason, it can be found in all people of every nation, and Lewis elaborates that pursuit of the knowledge of natural law becomes a pursuit of truth itself.  It is true that a great number of philosophers have described one such concept, and the principles which arise from natural law, such as equality under the law, link Lewis with some unlikely individuals. 

It may seem blasphemous to call Lewis and Ayn Rand compatriots because she was such a staunch atheist, but they would have agreed on a great many things.  For example, both advocate equality, but only equality of liberty, or equality of opportunity.  Lewis describes two motivations behind a desire for equality among democratic citizens: fair play and a hatred of superiority, otherwise known as egalitarianism.  Lewis and Rand both argue against the latter in their fictional works.  Along this same line, Rand and Lewis both fight against the rising power of science in society, recognizing the mask tyranny had donned in the ‘infallibility’ of science, and they fight against the rise of socialism and the welfare state.  Both are powers which would make us all slaves according to Lewis, and Rand has of course become a symbol of democratic freedom and individual liberty since her publication of Atlas Shrugged. 

Ironically, Lewis explains the rationale behind his understanding of political science to be based upon Christianity, because unlike Rousseau, Lewis knows that men are fallen and therefore cannot be trusted with power over their fellows.  He is against the ‘slavery’ of the welfare state because he sees no men fit to be masters.  Rand conversely shies away from the notions of Christianity which she views as dangerous, such as a propagation of the importance of self-sacrifice, which would have detrimental effects on society should every citizen base their decisions on self-sacrifice rather than self-interest.  Rand’s understanding of Christianity is of course considerably more limited than Lewis’s, which, I believe, leaves several holes in her argument from this regard.