This is a humdinger of an essay. Wonderful, intellectual food. I'm taking my time responding to this one because the contents are important and as relevant if not more today than they were when it was written. That's what I think of the essay. This is brilliant argumentation, brilliant writing. The union of moral consideration of man with civic justice is important and he walks the line very well.
Do I agree? Yes. I believe all authority flows to man from God. That means it sits on the apparatus of government before it reaches us, and that our nobility qua creations of God cannot be subdivided from our responsibility qua citizens and subjects. This is the tension CS Lewis is exploring--what happens when we stop treating man as having an inherent dignity qua creation, and start treating him as only deserving dignity conditionally if he obeys the law. If he doesn't, he abrogates all his rights to humanity and can be whisked away to be treated, punished, etc. CS Lewis avoids some of the hard rubber-meets-the-road discussion by disclaiming in the first paragraph that he's not talking about that. Which is fine, that's not what he was arguing. But there's a good argument to be had there, too.
Rhetorical Strategies: I was persuaded, TBH on first read I couldn't tell you which strategies he used, probably due to my own confirmation bias. He was speaking a language I know how to speak and he simply and forthrightly laid down his arguments using the parameters which I have already heard and understand. However, if I was to look at this from an antagonistic point of view: probably my biggest argument against Lewis would be "What do you propose?" And that's where Lewis avoided controversy by his disclaimer in the first paragraph. He is arguing against something, not putting forth an argument for something. Is the death penalty just? Is imprisonment just? What is the justice system *supposed to do*??? Lewis doesn't touch that with a ten foot pole, and that's the more practical problem. The philosophical problems are important and certainly prior to the practical problems, but there are people *right now* in jeopardy and arguing philosophy doesn't help them. So that's the approach I would take if I was positioned opposite Lewis: What should we do *right now*?
I was not already familiar with this essay, but this to me seems a much more argumentative side of Lewis than I had encountered before. It was fun honestly. I read the essay out loud to myself because it's the morning and I needed help to stay focused--and I found myself getting fired up. There's some excellent zingers, and I don't associate Lewis with rhetorical spiciness, I always consider him level headed though very very clever.
This was great. You might have seen the note I posted, but I want to reiterate: You are doing a GREAT service with this essay club, and it is one of my new favorite things on substack. Thank you very much for doing this!
This is a humdinger of an essay. Wonderful, intellectual food. I'm taking my time responding to this one because the contents are important and as relevant if not more today than they were when it was written. That's what I think of the essay. This is brilliant argumentation, brilliant writing. The union of moral consideration of man with civic justice is important and he walks the line very well.
Do I agree? Yes. I believe all authority flows to man from God. That means it sits on the apparatus of government before it reaches us, and that our nobility qua creations of God cannot be subdivided from our responsibility qua citizens and subjects. This is the tension CS Lewis is exploring--what happens when we stop treating man as having an inherent dignity qua creation, and start treating him as only deserving dignity conditionally if he obeys the law. If he doesn't, he abrogates all his rights to humanity and can be whisked away to be treated, punished, etc. CS Lewis avoids some of the hard rubber-meets-the-road discussion by disclaiming in the first paragraph that he's not talking about that. Which is fine, that's not what he was arguing. But there's a good argument to be had there, too.
Rhetorical Strategies: I was persuaded, TBH on first read I couldn't tell you which strategies he used, probably due to my own confirmation bias. He was speaking a language I know how to speak and he simply and forthrightly laid down his arguments using the parameters which I have already heard and understand. However, if I was to look at this from an antagonistic point of view: probably my biggest argument against Lewis would be "What do you propose?" And that's where Lewis avoided controversy by his disclaimer in the first paragraph. He is arguing against something, not putting forth an argument for something. Is the death penalty just? Is imprisonment just? What is the justice system *supposed to do*??? Lewis doesn't touch that with a ten foot pole, and that's the more practical problem. The philosophical problems are important and certainly prior to the practical problems, but there are people *right now* in jeopardy and arguing philosophy doesn't help them. So that's the approach I would take if I was positioned opposite Lewis: What should we do *right now*?
I was not already familiar with this essay, but this to me seems a much more argumentative side of Lewis than I had encountered before. It was fun honestly. I read the essay out loud to myself because it's the morning and I needed help to stay focused--and I found myself getting fired up. There's some excellent zingers, and I don't associate Lewis with rhetorical spiciness, I always consider him level headed though very very clever.
This was great. You might have seen the note I posted, but I want to reiterate: You are doing a GREAT service with this essay club, and it is one of my new favorite things on substack. Thank you very much for doing this!