Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Three Parts of Morality | C. S. Lewis

Transcript

The Three Parts of Morality | C. S. Lewis · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Reformed thinking. Welcome back to the Deep Dive.
0:03
You know, when we talk about morality, I think most people,
0:06
their minds immediately go to a list of prohibitions exactly a
0:12
fence built to keep them away from anything fun.
0:14
Our mission today is to take a stack of classic source
0:19
material, mainly CS Lewis's essay The Three Parts of
0:22
Morality, and do a really rigorous study of what morality
0:26
actually is. Almost like an engineering
0:28
study. Yeah, we're going beneath the
0:29
surface of Don't Do that to look at the, you know, the
0:32
operational structure of human life.
0:34
It's so necessary to reframe the whole conversation.
0:37
I mean, if we stay at that level of just boundaries, we miss the
0:41
point completely, completely. Lewis gives us a framework that
0:45
organizes the moral life into three essential interconnected
0:48
areas. It moves way beyond just
0:50
prohibitions and focuses on, well, design.
0:53
And it's the difference between. Reading a traffic law and
0:56
reading a blueprint for a functioning engine isn't.
0:58
It that's a great way to put it. And that structural thinking is
1:02
exactly what we need. We're not here to talk about
1:04
what the rules are, but why they exist in the 1st place.
1:07
You know, how they all relate to one another.
1:10
So let's unpack this. If we visualize human existence
1:14
individually, collectively, as this highly complex machine, we
1:18
have to address 2 foundational questions that Lewis puts out
1:21
there right away. OK, what are the directions for
1:24
operating this human machine? And what's the intended
1:26
destination of the whole system? Thinking of morality as
1:30
engineering, it just it immediately shifts the goal
1:33
posts. We're looking at human existence
1:35
as a mechanism that's designed for a specific use, and it
1:38
requires following a fixed set of operating parameters, the
1:42
success or failure of your life. In this context, it's not about
1:46
subjective happiness, it's a measure of whether the machine
1:49
is running efficiently and, you know, achieving what it was
1:52
designed to do. And we start that analysis right
1:55
here with Section 1, Morality as operating directions for the
1:59
human machine. Let's do it.
2:00
Lewis opens with this just a perfect anecdote.
2:03
It illustrates the popular misconception so well.
2:07
He tells the story of a schoolboy and the boys asked
2:10
about God, and he describes him as the sort of person who is
2:13
always snooping around to see if anyone is enjoying himself and
2:16
then trying to stop it and. That's it, isn't it?
2:18
That's the view. It's so widespread that morality
2:22
is this interfering joy sapping force.
2:25
It's what we inherit culturally, and it turns morality into this
2:29
game of, you know, dodging the rules or just grudgingly
2:34
following them because you're afraid of getting caught.
2:36
And that view fails because it misidentifies the nature of the
2:38
rule maker and just as much the purpose of the rules.
2:42
Right. The source cuts through this so
2:43
quickly by stating the core analogy.
2:46
Moral rules are directions for running the human machine.
2:49
Directions, not restrictions. Exactly.
2:51
They're not arbitrary rules designed to curtail your
2:54
pleasure or enjoyment. They're there strictly to, and
2:58
this is the key, prevent a breakdown or a strain or a
3:00
friction in the operation of that mechanism.
3:03
Like a maintenance schedule? It is if you bought a high
3:06
performance vehicle. The manual isn't trying to annoy
3:09
you, it's making sure you get the full designed performance
3:12
out of the machine without, you know, a catastrophic failure.
3:17
And what's so interesting is how we readily accept this for
3:20
physical machines, but we fight it tooth and nail for our own
3:24
moral lives. We do.
3:25
An engineer tells me, don't use low grade fuel in this engine.
3:28
I accept it. It's a practical constraint.
3:31
But when morality says don't lie, we often see that as this
3:35
oppressive restriction on my freedom.
3:37
But the source argues they're essentially the same thing.
3:39
They're both instructions for optimal operation, and the
3:43
analogy helps understand why moral rules so often seem to
3:46
interfere with our immediate natural inclinations.
3:50
Our inclinations in this metaphor are the impulses of the
3:53
untrained user. The person who just wants to
3:55
push all the buttons, Yeah. I mean, when you're being taught
3:58
how to use any complicated machine, the instructor is
4:01
constantly saying no, don't do it like that, even if that feels
4:04
easier or quicker or, you know, more natural to the novice.
4:08
So give us an example of that, that natural inclination trap in
4:11
the moral sphere. Well, think about the natural
4:14
urge to retaliate when someone slights you, or toward resources
4:18
when you feel insecure, or to shift blame when you make a
4:21
mistake. Sure, all very powerful
4:23
feelings. Very.
4:24
And they feel intuitively correct in the moment.
4:27
They feel natural, but as the source points out, the natural
4:31
way of treating the machine often just doesn't work.
4:34
If you follow that natural impulse of anger, you introduce
4:38
friction into the social parts of the machine.
4:40
That's Part 1. If you follow the natural
4:42
impulse of, say, sloth, you introduce strain into the
4:46
internal parts of the machine. Part 2.
4:48
The genius of Lewis's framing here is that it just refutes the
4:52
whole idea that moral life is about sacrificing your
4:55
well-being for some external law.
4:57
He's insisting that every moral rule is, in a way, self-serving.
5:00
It is in the sense that following it prevents damage to
5:03
the self, right? So the initial take away here is
5:05
just structural and practical. Morality is practical
5:09
engineering, not theoretical prohibition.
5:11
Every failure to follow the directions causes trouble, and
5:14
not just for other people. No, that trouble is probably
5:17
experienced by others, yes, but the source is clear that it is
5:21
certainly going to cause trouble to oneself.
5:23
We see the internal cost of transgression all the time.
5:26
Like what? The anxiety of deceit?
5:28
The corrosion of your integrity from all those habitual minor
5:31
compromises? The internal instability that's
5:34
caused by unchecked desire? These are forms of moral
5:38
friction, and they compound over time.
5:40
So it's the difference between doing what feels immediately
5:43
good and doing what actually aligns with the machines design.
5:46
And since the machine is me, I'm the one who ends up paying the
5:49
highest long term maintenance cost.
5:50
Exactly. And the structural understanding
5:53
that moral law is an objective operational necessity is why
5:57
Lewis then transitions directly into arguing against using the
6:01
word ideals. Because if morality is objective
6:04
engineering, then calling it a mere ideal is, well, it's
6:07
intellectual malpractice. Which brings us directly to
6:10
Section 2, the danger of moral idealism.
6:14
Lewis spends a lot of time critiquing the language of
6:16
ideals versus rules and obedience.
6:20
Why quibble over terminology? I mean, it seems a bit semantic.
6:24
It seems that way, but he treats this choice of words as a
6:27
genuine moral hazard. He recognizes that ideal is true
6:31
in one sort of benign sense. He acknowledges that moral
6:35
profession, a human machine running absolutely without a
6:39
single friction or strain, is an ideal because, well, we can't
6:42
achieve. It imperfect operators.
6:44
Right. It's like driving a car
6:46
perfectly or drawing a perfectly geometrically flawless straight
6:49
line. Perfect moral behavior is
6:51
unattainable for us in this life.
6:53
So in that sense, as unattainable perfection, calling
6:56
it an ideal is, you know, accurate.
6:58
But that's the benign sense he's worried about the misleading
7:00
sense. The one that relates to
7:02
subjectivity and private taste? Yes, that's the dangerous
7:05
slippage in the language when a person calls a garden or a piece
7:08
of art or even a spouse. My ideal?
7:10
What do they mean? They mean it's what they like, a
7:13
personal taste. A private, subjective taste
7:16
that's attractive to them, but not something everyone else has
7:19
to share or live up to. In matters of aesthetics, we can
7:23
hold different ideals. You might prefer minimalism, I
7:26
might prefer something more ornate.
7:29
Both are fine. The danger, then, is
7:31
transferring that subjective flavor of the word ideal to the
7:34
moral law. If I say honesty is my moral
7:37
ideal, I'm sort of implying that it's just a personal aspiration.
7:41
An optional lifestyle choice you happen to favor.
7:43
Exactly. And not a universal operating
7:46
requirement that's prescribed by the very nature of humanity.
7:49
And that, Lewis argues, is a disastrous mistake, because
7:52
perfect behavior is not a matter of private taste.
7:55
It is a necessary ideal, prescribed for all men by the
7:58
very nature of the human machine.
8:00
So it's not about personal flavor, it's about operating
8:02
within objective design parameters.
8:04
Going back to our analogy, perfect gear changing or proper
8:07
oil levels are ideals prescribed for all drivers by the nature of
8:10
cars, not by 1 driver's private preference for engine longevity.
8:14
This means that if moral behavior is objective, then
8:17
failure isn't just a lapse in personal preference, it's a
8:21
violation of the machine's design.
8:23
And this leads us straight into what you call the Prague
8:26
warning. Lewis details the danger of
8:29
thinking of yourself as a person of high ideals just because you
8:34
strive to avoid all lies instead of you know, only a few, or you
8:39
try never to cheat instead of only now and then.
8:41
The problem with the language of idealism is that it feeds self
8:44
congratulation now. So if you view morality as an
8:47
optional ideal, then every step you take toward it feels like
8:50
some kind of extra credit achievement that deserves
8:52
applause. You become a prig, believing you
8:54
were a special person who deserves congratulations on your
8:57
idealism. The error is mistaking
8:59
fundamental maintenance for heroic effort.
9:01
That's it exactly. I always struggled with why
9:03
Louis used such harsh language against ideals, but now I see
9:07
it. It's not about being UN
9:09
aspirational, it's about neutralizing that self
9:12
congratulation and just demanding compliance with
9:15
objective design. If I managed to tell the truth
9:17
for a whole week, I shouldn't think look how morally superior
9:21
I am. I should just recognize, OK,
9:24
I've operated the communication circuits of the human machine
9:27
correctly as they were intended. Precisely, and this shifting
9:30
perspective is so crucial, especially today where moral
9:34
identity is often treated like a brand or a source of self esteem
9:37
instead of a functional requirement.
9:39
So if you succeed in avoiding moral friction, you haven't
9:42
earned a medal. You've simply avoided
9:44
self-inflicted damage. To push that analogy a bit
9:47
further, is Lewis suggesting that societal systems are always
9:50
limited by the moral capacity of the people running them, no
9:54
matter how well the system is designed?
9:55
We'll get into that more in Part 3, but yes, the short answer is
9:58
that the language of ideals makes morality optional, and if
10:02
it's optional, it's widespread. Practice is unstable.
10:06
So he prefers rules and obedience.
10:09
Because those terms acknowledge the objective necessity of the
10:13
law, and this is perfectly demonstrated by his arithmetic
10:16
analogy. OK, let's spend some time with
10:18
the arithmetic analogy, because it's a really high value insight
10:21
that I think often gets lost over.
10:23
OK, think about a long, complicated calculation.
10:26
You might as well expect to be congratulated for trying to get
10:29
the sum quite right. Now, of course perfect
10:32
arithmetic is an ideal. We all make mistakes and
10:35
calculations sometimes. But what is your approach when
10:38
you're actually doing the math? My approach is to try to be
10:42
accurate at each step, because I know that one mistake early on
10:46
will make the entire final answer worthless.
10:49
Exactly. There's nothing exceptional
10:51
about trying to be quite accurate at each step.
10:54
It's just what any rational person attempting the
10:57
calculation must do. In fact, it would be idiotic not
11:00
to try, because every single mistake in the arithmetic is
11:03
going to cause trouble later. It could cause the whole project
11:06
built on that map to collapse. It will.
11:08
So applying that to morality, every failure, every lapse in
11:12
discipline, every act of selfishness or minor dishonesty,
11:16
is a calculation error. It causes friction, yes, but
11:19
more dangerously, it changes the foundational integrity of the
11:22
person. And the cost compounds
11:25
exponentially. A single lie might feel trivial,
11:28
a minor calculation error. But if that lie is built on by
11:31
other rationalizations and by the internal adjustment you have
11:35
to make to maintain the lie, that slight friction turns into
11:38
systemic failure. The person who allows themselves
11:42
these minor calculation errors in their character eventually
11:45
builds A faulty structure. A structure that cannot bear any
11:48
serious weight. And sticking to the terms,
11:51
rules, and obedience rather than ideals and idealism helps us
11:55
avoid this intellectual and spiritual error.
11:58
It forces us to see. The compliance isn't a badge of
12:01
honor. It's basic necessary
12:03
functionality. It's what's required to maintain
12:05
our individual integrity and avoid compounding the errors
12:08
that will eventually define us. That's a powerful full reframing
12:11
of the moral life and this analysis of rules and obedience.
12:14
It naturally brings us to the architecture of moral failure.
12:17
Now that we understand what the rules are, operating directions,
12:20
we need to see where the human machine goes wrong.
12:22
So we moved to Section 3, the three parts of morality.
12:25
Visualize through the fleet and the band.
12:28
This is Lewis's comprehensive framework.
12:31
He suggests that moral failure happens in two distinct ways
12:34
within the system, and those two ways are entirely directed by a
12:37
third overarching consideration. And he uses the analogy of a
12:40
fleet of ships sailing in formation.
12:43
Or a band playing a tune. Yes, it helps visualize this
12:46
interdependency. If you want a successful voyage
12:49
or a successful concert, all three parts have to be working.
12:53
Let's start with Part 1. This is the most recognizable
12:56
dimension of morality harmony between individuals, right?
13:00
Part 1 is defined as fair play and harmony between individuals.
13:03
It's morality as external behavior, preventing collisions,
13:07
cheating, bullying. In the fleet analogy, this is
13:10
just the ship's not running into one another.
13:12
And maintaining a clean lane. In the band analogy, it's each
13:15
player coming in at the right moment, so they combine
13:17
correctly with all the others. And this is where most
13:19
contemporary moral discussion just stops.
13:22
When we talk about improving society, we talk about Part 1,
13:25
Kindness, fair play between nations, classes, individuals.
13:28
It's the application of morality to the social sphere, and it's
13:33
the obvious starting point because the immediate results of
13:35
failure here are so visible. War, economic injustice,
13:39
Corruption. Shoddy workmanship.
13:42
And importantly, Part 1 is where there is the least disagreement.
13:47
Almost all people, whatever your deeper beliefs are, they agree
13:50
in theory that human beings ought to be honest and kind and
13:54
helpful to one another. But Lewis warns that if our
13:57
thinking stops at Part 1, we might just as well not a thought
14:00
at all. Why is Part 1 alone so
14:02
insufficient? Because it's treating the
14:04
symptom, not the cause. You can issue all the traffic
14:07
rules you want for the ships, but if the ships themselves are
14:10
fundamentally unsound, the rules are useless.
14:13
We have to go on to the second thing.
14:14
Which is Part 2. The tidying up inside each human
14:17
being. Part 2.
14:18
Tidying up inside the individual the internal health, the
14:21
seaworthiness of the individual human machine.
14:23
How's that defined? This refers to what goes wrong
14:26
inside the person. When your faculties and your
14:29
desires drift apart or they interfere, they conflict.
14:32
It's the restoration of order within the self.
14:34
And in the analogy. 2 is ensuring each ship is truly
14:38
seaworthy, that her engines and rudder are in good working
14:42
order. In the band.
14:44
It means each player's individual instrument must be
14:46
perfectly in tune. If the trombone is flat or the
14:49
violin is sharp, the whole concert is compromised.
14:53
Even if they time their entries perfectly, which is Part 1,
14:56
right? That makes the system totally
14:58
interconnected. So you can't successfully have
15:01
Part 1 without Part 2. It sounds like collisions damage
15:05
seaworthiness, and poor seaworthiness guarantees future
15:09
collisions. It's a feedback loop.
15:11
If the ships constantly collide, their hulls won't remain intact,
15:14
so that damages Part 2. But the most critical element is
15:17
that if the internal steering years your internal mechanisms
15:21
of discipline and self-control. If they're broken, the ship
15:24
cannot be steered to avoid collisions, no matter how well
15:27
the captain knows the Part 1 rules.
15:29
This directly challenges that common modern mindset that often
15:32
justifies behavior by saying, well, it can't be wrong because
15:35
it doesn't do anyone else any immediate harm.
15:37
That person is thinking only of Part 1.
15:39
Not damaging the next ship. And they're completely
15:41
forgetting Part 2, what their own ship is like inside.
15:45
Lewis's critique is so sharp here.
15:47
He asks what is the good of telling the ships how to steer
15:51
to avoid collisions if in fact they are crazy old tubs that
15:54
cannot be steered at all. Because they're driven by greed
15:57
or cowardice or I'll temper. Or self conceit, Yes.
16:00
I can hear a modern listener pushing back on this saying, but
16:04
isn't Part 2 inherently subjective?
16:07
How can we objectively define the in tune state of a human
16:10
mind given all the diverse temperaments and cultures?
16:14
That's a fair challenge, and it's why the engineering analogy
16:16
is so strong. Lewis would argue that the moral
16:19
law, like physical law, is objective because it's based on
16:22
the design of the human machine. The intune state is the state of
16:25
a person whose desires and will are properly oriented and
16:29
disciplined. Serving the larger necessary
16:31
functions right? Greed, for instance, isn't a
16:33
moral ideal. It's a design flaw that hijacks
16:36
the steering system. It prevents the machine from
16:38
carrying out its primary function, which is harmonious
16:41
interaction Part 1. So we can draw up perfect social
16:46
rules, perfect economic systems, whatever, but if our internal
16:50
components are characters, are fundamentally flawed, we will
16:54
find a way to break the system. Absolutely.
16:56
Lewis acknowledges we ought to think hard about social and
16:59
economic improvement. We should be designing better
17:01
systems for Part 1. But he argues that all the
17:04
systemic thinking is just moonshine unless we realize that
17:09
nothing but the courage, self-control, and unselfishness
17:12
of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly.
17:16
You cannot make men good by law. You can't.
17:18
And we see historical examples of this constantly.
17:21
Utopian movements fail not because the blueprints were
17:24
flawed, but because the individuals implementing them
17:27
found new ways for their old flaws.
17:29
Envy. Ambition.
17:30
Sloth to just resurface and corrupt the structure.
17:33
Right. A new law might remove one
17:35
particular kind of graft, but if men are fundamentally corrupt,
17:38
they just find a new way of carrying on the old game under
17:41
the new system. Without seaworthy men, you can't
17:43
have a good society. That is why morality has to
17:46
progress inward to Part 2. We have to fix the individual
17:49
ship. But Lewis cautions us not to
17:51
stop there, because if we fix the ship without knowing its
17:54
purpose, we might as well not have started at all.
17:57
We have to proceed to the third most expansive and challenging
18:00
part of the framework. OK, so let's move to Section 4,
18:03
the general purpose and relations to the maker.
18:06
This is where the whole operation is given its ultimate
18:08
meaning, and where the conversation shifts from ethics
18:11
to metaphysics. It has to.
18:13
The third part is the general purpose of human life as a
18:16
whole. It asks the ultimate design
18:18
question. What was man made for?
18:21
What course ought the whole fleet to be on?
18:24
What tune does the conductor want the band to play?
18:27
This is the destination analogy. The individual instruments might
18:31
be in tune Part 2 and they might combine at the right moment Part
18:35
1, but the whole performance is still a failure if they were
18:38
hired to play dance music and they actually played nothing but
18:41
dead marches. The fleet's voyage fails if the
18:44
ships are in perfect formation and seaworthy, but they arrive
18:47
at Calcutta when the mission was New York.
18:49
And this is where the differences between Christian
18:51
and non Christian morality become really serious.
18:55
I mean up until now Lewis has mostly provided a kind of moral
18:58
geometry that a non believer could conceptually agree with.
19:01
They could, but the third part involves statements about facts
19:05
that have to be either true or false.
19:07
And these factual statements about the universe's origin, the
19:10
nature of man, his lifespan, they determine the right sailing
19:14
of the fleet. Yes.
19:15
If you believe the universe is purely material and accidental,
19:19
then the ultimate purpose of the fleet is subjective.
19:22
It's tied only to temporary social contracts.
19:24
The destination is self chosen, but if you believe the universe
19:28
was created and launched by a specific power with a specific
19:32
mission, the destination is fixed and objective.
19:35
And that distinction, objective purpose versus subjective
19:38
purpose, it changes the entire moral code.
19:41
If I'm sailing aimlessly, I can change my rules mid voyage.
19:44
If I'm sailing to a fixed point, the rules for my speed, my
19:48
direction, my payload, they become non negotiable.
19:50
And this leads us to the crucial landlord tenant distinction,
19:54
which addresses ownership. This really grounds the morality
19:57
of Part 2. It does when a person says it
19:59
cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being.
20:03
They understand their Part 1 duty not damaging the other
20:06
ships. But they honestly think what
20:08
they do to their own ship Part 2 is simply their own business.
20:12
And modern ethics is often built on that assumption of absolute
20:16
self ownership. My body, my mind, my time, their
20:19
mind to use or abuse as I see fit as long as I don't violate
20:22
Part 1. Question of ownership just
20:24
demolishes that view. It makes a huge difference
20:26
whether the machine, my body and mind is my own property, the
20:30
landlord, or if I am only a tenant responsible to the real
20:34
landlord. If I'm the landlord then I can
20:36
run my ship into the ground, fill it with junk, whatever.
20:38
It's my private business is my right.
20:40
But if somebody else, the maker, made me for their own sovereign
20:43
purposes, I have intrinsic non negotiable duties that would
20:47
simply not exist if I just belong to myself.
20:49
This completely reframes stewardship.
20:51
Precisely the concept of tenancy transforms our resources, our
20:55
time, our bodies into assets we are responsible for managing,
20:58
according to the Makers lease agreement.
21:00
This is where the core tenets of reform fought, just naturally
21:04
aligned with Lewis framework. They do.
21:06
If God is the sovereign Creator, then we are stewards, not
21:10
owners. Duties like reverence, worship,
21:13
spiritual discipline, and avoiding specific sins against
21:16
the body. They become immediately required
21:18
of us. Not because they're pleasant or
21:20
socially useful. No, but because they are
21:23
required by the terms of the lease.
21:25
Let's dedicate some time to the practical moral implications of
21:28
tenancy. If my time is my own property,
21:31
the moral status of sloth, or of wasting my talents, it shifts,
21:35
doesn't it? It goes from being a self
21:36
improvement issue to being a failure of stewardship.
21:39
Absolutely. Consider time management.
21:41
If I'm the landlord, wasting an hour is just a lost personal
21:44
opportunity. If I'm a tenant, that hour
21:47
belongs to the real landlord and I've wasted resources that were
21:50
entrusted to me. The accountability changes from
21:52
internal regret to external duty.
21:55
The same applies to our physical health.
21:57
Yes. It's not just about looking good
21:59
or feeling good. It's about maintaining the
22:01
instrument the owner requires for his service.
22:03
This deepens Part 2 dramatically.
22:06
Tidying up inside isn't for self actualization, it's for proper
22:11
functional service to the maker. That is a fundamental challenge
22:14
to secular assumptions about freedom and our economy, and
22:18
Part 3 also deals with the question of immortality and its
22:22
consequences, a huge one. Christianity asserts that every
22:26
individual human being is going to live forever.
22:30
This has to be taken as a factual statement, either true
22:33
or false. That just changes everything.
22:35
This assertion radically alters the calculus of moral choice.
22:39
It pushes the time horizon out to Infinity.
22:41
There are many moral struggles, things like bad temper, self
22:44
pity, petty jealousy that you know wouldn't be worth agonizing
22:48
over if you were only going to live 70 years.
22:51
You could just rationalize them as minor character quirks that
22:53
will soon vanish with death. Right.
22:55
But if you're going to live forever, those seemingly small
22:58
flaws have to be bothered about very seriously.
23:00
Why? Because character, once it's
23:02
formed, it seems to accumulate and reinforce itself.
23:04
Character traits, virtues, or vices are habits.
23:08
They are the grooves that the human machine cars into its own
23:12
mechanisms. In a 70 year span, the worsening
23:15
in vices might be so gradual that you don't really notice it.
23:18
We see ourselves getting a little crankier, a little
23:20
lazier, a little more jealous, but we just think I'm just
23:23
getting old. But if you project that gradual
23:26
worsening, that deepening of the groove of ice over a million
23:29
years, the result is staggering. The friction, the strain, the
23:34
breakdown, it just compounds without end.
23:36
Lewis states that the end result of that unchecked increasing
23:40
moral decay might be absolute hell in a million years.
23:44
In fact, if Christianity is true, hell is the precisely
23:48
correct technical term for what it would be.
23:50
Wow. And it's crucial to understand
23:51
this not as some arbitrary punitive invention, but as the
23:54
natural inevitable outcome of an individual machine that is
23:57
perpetually choosing breakdown in friction.
23:59
And that choice is then solidified by everlasting
24:02
duration, it's character achieving its final unchangeable
24:05
state. That's a figuring realization.
24:08
Immortality transforms these small failures from temporary
24:12
inconveniences into permanent defining conditions.
24:16
It makes the battle for Part 2 tidying up inside the most
24:20
consequential activity possible. And furthermore, immortality
24:23
makes another huge difference that connects back to Part 1,
24:27
the value of the individual versus the state.
24:29
OK, if individuals live only 70 years, then a state or a nation
24:34
or civilization which might last for 1000 years is logically
24:38
considered more significant than the individual.
24:41
The collective goal outweighs the temporary existence of the
24:44
person. So in that secular short
24:46
lifespan view, the individual becomes expendable for the
24:49
greater, longer lasting collective.
24:51
And this justifies all sorts of political philosophies that
24:54
prioritize the state's survival above individual dignity or
24:57
rights. But a Christianity is true.
24:59
The individual is incomparably more significant.
25:01
Why? Because the individual is
25:03
everlasting. The life of a state or a
25:06
civilization, when you compare it with the duration of the
25:08
individual soul, is only a moment.
25:10
You are permanent. The civilization is temporary.
25:13
This provides a deep grounding for the unique value of the
25:16
person that's inherent in the Christian perspective.
25:19
It elevates the importance of saving one's own ship, Part 2
25:23
and the dignity of every other individual ship Part 1, above
25:27
the fleeting concerns of temporal power structures.
25:30
The individual is not a means to a collective end.
25:33
The individual is the end. That's why any moral thinking
25:37
that neglects Part 3, the ultimate destination in
25:39
relationship to the maker, is just doomed to instability.
25:42
It is if we don't know the purpose of the machine and the
25:44
duration of its lifespan, we can never define the Operating Rules
25:47
Part 2 correctly, which in turn means we can never achieve
25:51
Social Harmony Part 1 permanently.
25:53
You have to consider all three departments.
25:55
Relations between man and man, things inside each man, and
25:58
relations between man and the power that made him.
26:01
And the ultimate message is that you can't truly grasp morality
26:04
without accounting for all three levels of functional design,
26:08
esecially the objective purpose assigned by the designer.
26:10
O our deep dive into Lewis structure, it really offers a
26:13
clear blueprint for functional existence.
26:16
The key take away for you the learner is synthesis.
26:20
Morality is a mechanism to ignore the second part, the
26:24
internal condition of the individual ship, or the third
26:27
part, the ultimate purpose and destination, is to guarantee
26:31
failure in the first part, social harmony.
26:33
You can never achieve Part 1 successfully with failing
26:37
components in Part 2 and a misunderstood mission in part
26:40
three. Never.
26:41
And that's the application point we should probably dwell on.
26:43
We should consider which of the three parts we or our society
26:47
most frequently neglect. I mean, when you hear advice on
26:51
social improvement, does it stop at the surface?
26:53
Does it focus only on rules for avoiding collision?
26:56
That's Part 1 thinking. Or does it address the
26:59
seaworthiness of the individual ship, the internal maintenance
27:02
of character? And moreover, does that advice
27:04
ever question the destination? Without the third part, we are
27:08
simply rearranging deck chairs on ships that might be sailing
27:11
toward the wrong Calcutta. Or playing a perfectly tuned
27:14
instrument in a band that's playing a dirge when it was
27:16
commissioned to play a waltz. Right.
27:19
The entire effort, no matter how well it's executed, is wasted if
27:22
the purpose is misidentified. So if every moral failure is a
27:25
calculation error, as we established early on, what
27:29
systemic trouble are our collective minor failures
27:32
causing today? And how much is that trouble
27:34
compounded by the fact that we're everlasting beings?
27:38
If hell is the technical term for moral decay prolonged
27:41
indefinitely, that every seemingly insignificant internal
27:44
failure is a design flaw that requires immediate radical
27:48
attention, not self congratulatory idealism.
27:51
And finally, a provocative thought for you to carry
27:53
forward. Revisit that framework of duty
27:56
and ownership. Consider what duties you might
27:59
hold right now simply because you are not the landlord of your
28:02
own being. If your existence is a tenancy.
28:04
What are the terms of the lease that apply to your time, your
28:07
resources, yourself, control and your attention?
28:10
That change in framework from owner to steward changes
28:14
everything about how we approach the moral life.
28:16
We'll pick up this conversation next time as we continue our
28:18
study of Lewis's moral framework.