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!
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I agree - this is a great essay, well written, and it touches on a problem that's both important and difficult to fully resolve.
You're right about the big limitation of Lewis' essay/argument. He sidesteps some of the harder questions to focus on a more limited version of what he's criticising. I don't think is a bad thing exactly, he still says a lot and makes an important point, but you're right that it would have been helpful to see more specific thoughts on 'what are we supposed to do?'. I think he also takes a position that is too far to one side - I can envisage a system of punishment that involves all three elements (desert, deterrence, cure), but Lewis seems to ignore this possibility here.
I think he does this for rhetorical reasons. The 'fence-sitter' position appears weak, and generally doesn't make for very compelling reading. I'm sure that Lewis was aware of this, and was willing to sacrifice some nuance in order to make the strongest possible case for his preferred position. Some of the other elements I found somewhat objectionable were clearly rhetorical strategies - e.g., "The new Nero will approach us with the silky manners
of a doctor... when the command is given, every prominent Christian in the land may vanish overnight into Institutions for the Treatment of the Ideologically Unsound, and it will rest with the expert gaolers to say when (if ever) they are to re-emerge". He paints a vivid picture, but to me it comes across too strong, a bit melodramatic.
What do you think? I imagine some of these sections would fall flat for a committed atheist - but of course, from a Christian perspective, the atheist is already in a worse position than being merely imprisoned, so maybe this doesn't matter.
Interesting! I think a system that includes all three elements would be FAR more difficult to balance. Punishment should fit the crime and, maybe, also the criminal. If we had a system oriented around the dignity of the human person, we wouldn't need to construct a system with all three--a system oriented around just deserts would factor in all exculpatory factors. A mentally ill person cannot be culpable to the same degree as a rationally premeditating criminal who commits the same crime. So the punishment shouldn't be the same--and perhaps for the mentally ill person it includes some element of treatment.
I agree the Nero bit was severe but I don't think it was unwarranted. Elephant in the room--we all lived thru COVID and there was, to varying degrees, a tyranny of experts and silky doctors. They weren't mobilized to persecute christians, but if society permits christianity to be treated as a neuroses (which served as a predicate to the analogy), then it is not hard to foresee. This was definitely one of the lower pot-shots of this persuasive essay but I do believe it aids its persuasive power.
A committed atheist probably would have trouble with this essay, and in all likelihood I think committed atheists probably do most of the policy decision-making in America. Law follows Society, and if society isn't christian it's laws won't be christian. So in that respect CS Lewis was fighting an uphill battle, on the front-end of the waning Christian influence in modern western society.
In that sense, the fundamental challenge of today--now that the cat is pretty far out of the bag and CS Lewis' position has become even more extreme of a minority-- looking back on the history of our justice systems, can we say that they have worked effectively? I think the answer is no, and I think if we want the answer to be yes, we have to change some fundamental assumptions in society, so we can change some laws. These are century-scale problems, and will not be resolved in an election cycle. If you want a different outcome you have to do something different.
It's certainly a difficult task, but I think what you said is the sort of thing I had in mind. There needs to be an element of (proportionate) punishment in almost all cases, but in certain cases a reduced sentence or alternative pathway may be warranted, e.g., in the case of someone with an intellectual disability. At the same time, there are certain crimes that just need to be punished for the sake of the criminal, the victim, and wider society. Some people take the extreme view in the other direction, something like 'all people can be rehabilitated', which is simply untrue.
Fair enough re COVID - I had strong reservations about how that was handled, and it does provide a perfect example of the kind of medico-legal tyranny a state can impose. Obviously Christians weren't targeted specifically by lockdowns etc., but it significantly impacted them, and my understanding is that many churches still haven't returned to pre-COVID numbers. If the state decided to target Christians specifically - which I do agree is possible, given the ideological trajectory of those in power - I can see how the 'mental illness' angle could be used to justify this.
"looking back on the history of our justice systems, can we say that they have worked effectively?" - no! And perfection isn't possible IMO, but the concept of desert needs to remain a part of the justice system if it is to work effectively. You're right that some fundamental assumptions need to change, but that's a much bigger discussion...
Thanks for your comments and support, Scoot! I thought this was a really interesting one, glad it resonated with you.
I think what you've suggested sounds good in theory - "procedurally reduce the risk of people hurting each other", "Build her a new society, as nice as we can manage, where that’s impossible", "Rehabilitate or segregate" - but in practice, how do we do this? People have tried for a long time to 'cure' criminality, but ultimately there seems to be a certain subset of the population who just can't change.
I can appreciate trying not to simplify the process - you're right that criminality is a complex thing, and could be managed more effectively using some of these strategies. The problem that I (and I suspect Lewis) have with 'making prisons as nice as humanly possible' is that, on some level, there's something not right about this in many cases. How do you justify letting a person be placed in a nice comfy apartment after being convicted of multiple violent rapes or murders? How do you justify that to his victims?
There's something about the feud system that makes sense to me. I can see why it was outlawed, but with some regulation (and strict laws against torture) I think it could be a viable system of justice for a limited number of crimes.
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!
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I agree - this is a great essay, well written, and it touches on a problem that's both important and difficult to fully resolve.
You're right about the big limitation of Lewis' essay/argument. He sidesteps some of the harder questions to focus on a more limited version of what he's criticising. I don't think is a bad thing exactly, he still says a lot and makes an important point, but you're right that it would have been helpful to see more specific thoughts on 'what are we supposed to do?'. I think he also takes a position that is too far to one side - I can envisage a system of punishment that involves all three elements (desert, deterrence, cure), but Lewis seems to ignore this possibility here.
I think he does this for rhetorical reasons. The 'fence-sitter' position appears weak, and generally doesn't make for very compelling reading. I'm sure that Lewis was aware of this, and was willing to sacrifice some nuance in order to make the strongest possible case for his preferred position. Some of the other elements I found somewhat objectionable were clearly rhetorical strategies - e.g., "The new Nero will approach us with the silky manners
of a doctor... when the command is given, every prominent Christian in the land may vanish overnight into Institutions for the Treatment of the Ideologically Unsound, and it will rest with the expert gaolers to say when (if ever) they are to re-emerge". He paints a vivid picture, but to me it comes across too strong, a bit melodramatic.
What do you think? I imagine some of these sections would fall flat for a committed atheist - but of course, from a Christian perspective, the atheist is already in a worse position than being merely imprisoned, so maybe this doesn't matter.
Interesting! I think a system that includes all three elements would be FAR more difficult to balance. Punishment should fit the crime and, maybe, also the criminal. If we had a system oriented around the dignity of the human person, we wouldn't need to construct a system with all three--a system oriented around just deserts would factor in all exculpatory factors. A mentally ill person cannot be culpable to the same degree as a rationally premeditating criminal who commits the same crime. So the punishment shouldn't be the same--and perhaps for the mentally ill person it includes some element of treatment.
I agree the Nero bit was severe but I don't think it was unwarranted. Elephant in the room--we all lived thru COVID and there was, to varying degrees, a tyranny of experts and silky doctors. They weren't mobilized to persecute christians, but if society permits christianity to be treated as a neuroses (which served as a predicate to the analogy), then it is not hard to foresee. This was definitely one of the lower pot-shots of this persuasive essay but I do believe it aids its persuasive power.
A committed atheist probably would have trouble with this essay, and in all likelihood I think committed atheists probably do most of the policy decision-making in America. Law follows Society, and if society isn't christian it's laws won't be christian. So in that respect CS Lewis was fighting an uphill battle, on the front-end of the waning Christian influence in modern western society.
In that sense, the fundamental challenge of today--now that the cat is pretty far out of the bag and CS Lewis' position has become even more extreme of a minority-- looking back on the history of our justice systems, can we say that they have worked effectively? I think the answer is no, and I think if we want the answer to be yes, we have to change some fundamental assumptions in society, so we can change some laws. These are century-scale problems, and will not be resolved in an election cycle. If you want a different outcome you have to do something different.
It's certainly a difficult task, but I think what you said is the sort of thing I had in mind. There needs to be an element of (proportionate) punishment in almost all cases, but in certain cases a reduced sentence or alternative pathway may be warranted, e.g., in the case of someone with an intellectual disability. At the same time, there are certain crimes that just need to be punished for the sake of the criminal, the victim, and wider society. Some people take the extreme view in the other direction, something like 'all people can be rehabilitated', which is simply untrue.
Fair enough re COVID - I had strong reservations about how that was handled, and it does provide a perfect example of the kind of medico-legal tyranny a state can impose. Obviously Christians weren't targeted specifically by lockdowns etc., but it significantly impacted them, and my understanding is that many churches still haven't returned to pre-COVID numbers. If the state decided to target Christians specifically - which I do agree is possible, given the ideological trajectory of those in power - I can see how the 'mental illness' angle could be used to justify this.
"looking back on the history of our justice systems, can we say that they have worked effectively?" - no! And perfection isn't possible IMO, but the concept of desert needs to remain a part of the justice system if it is to work effectively. You're right that some fundamental assumptions need to change, but that's a much bigger discussion...
Thanks for your comments and support, Scoot! I thought this was a really interesting one, glad it resonated with you.
I think what you've suggested sounds good in theory - "procedurally reduce the risk of people hurting each other", "Build her a new society, as nice as we can manage, where that’s impossible", "Rehabilitate or segregate" - but in practice, how do we do this? People have tried for a long time to 'cure' criminality, but ultimately there seems to be a certain subset of the population who just can't change.
I can appreciate trying not to simplify the process - you're right that criminality is a complex thing, and could be managed more effectively using some of these strategies. The problem that I (and I suspect Lewis) have with 'making prisons as nice as humanly possible' is that, on some level, there's something not right about this in many cases. How do you justify letting a person be placed in a nice comfy apartment after being convicted of multiple violent rapes or murders? How do you justify that to his victims?
There's something about the feud system that makes sense to me. I can see why it was outlawed, but with some regulation (and strict laws against torture) I think it could be a viable system of justice for a limited number of crimes.
I don't see that happening any time soon though!