Essay Questions

Explain Lewis's analogy of "Men Without Chests."

In a similar method to Plato's division of the human soul into the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts, Lewis divides the man into the head, the chest, and the stomach. The head is the center of the intellect, or pure reason. The stomach represents a person's base, visceral, appetitive desires. The chest is the most nuanced and the most immediately important of the three. It is the will, the part of the body that the intellect uses to govern the desires; in the words of Lewis, "indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man" (25). Without the chest, it is impossible to associate emotions with external things such as ideas and objects.

Lewis argues that the subjectively-oriented way Gaius and Titius teach is deadening students' sensibilities to things such as emotions, claiming that they are little more than fallacious appeals. This training essentially removes the chest from the person, creating people with no intermediaries between the intellect and the desires, and therefore indulging in both without moderation. These "Men Without Chests" are a symptom of the problem plaguing the modern era that could lead to the bleak future of "The Abolition of Man."

What is the irony of the relationship between Man and Nature?

Man is constantly attempting to wrest complete control away from Nature in his quest for dominance. Eventually scientific advances will allow Man complete control over Nature, which he will use to shape the future of mankind, including the characteristics of people not even born yet. Ironically, the men who will be entrusted with this power must be separate from mankind so as to avoid bias. These "Conditioners" will reject the Tao in their rejection of humanity, and in doing so, they will be rejecting the use of reason and imperatives. Consequently, they will be slaves to their natural impulses. Nature will rule over the men who rule over Man, creating the following irony: Man's conquest of Nature will actually result in Nature's conquest of Man.

Why does Lewis argue that science cannot be objective?

In The Abolition of Man, the author argues that science does not represent objective truth but is rather a product of human beings who are both moral and political creatures. He suggests that ordinary people are often unaware of this fact because they have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by people who have a clear plan and were taught in school by such people. Lewis argues that science cannot be objective because it is based on certain unspoken assumptions about how the world works, what constitutes knowledge, and what is a valid or reasonable way to acquire knowledge. Science assumes that a universe is a coherent place where natural laws work in predictable ways. There is such a thing as objective truth, which can be obtained through observation and experimentation. At best, these assumptions are contentious, but they are essential to modern scientific thinking, which means that science cannot be objective.

Lewis notes that many scientists do not fit these assumptions into their world views and even contradict them with their actions; for example, some scientists assume the universe has no purpose yet act as if their lives have meaning. He suggests that this contradiction makes science inherently subjective because it relies on unprovable beliefs about the nature of reality.

What are the potential consequences of abandoning objective moral values, according to Lewis in "The Abolition of Man"? How does he envision the future of humanity if relativism becomes the dominant moral framework?

In "The Abolition of Man," C. S. Lewis issues a dire warning against the dehumanizing effects of rejecting objective moral principles in favor of relativism, which include making people into manipulable objects rather than morally independent beings. In the absence of overarching moral guidelines, moral rectitude and virtue deteriorate, creating an ethically confused society where individualized choices take the place of enduring values. In Lewis's future, human agency and dignity are threatened by the absence of objective morality, leading to a tyrannical and dehumanized society.