Stepping outside the [moral law], they have stepped into the void.
Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men. They are not men at all: they
are artefacts. Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man...
Yet the conditioners will act ... All motives that claim any validity other
than that of their felt emotional weight at a given moment have failed them ...
but what never claimed objectivity cannot be destroyed by subjectivism ... the
Conditioners, therefore, must come to be motivated simply by their own
pleasures [or fears] ... those who
stand outside all judgements of value cannot have any ground for preferring one
of their impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse.
Therefore,
at the moment of man’s conquest of nature, we may find the human race in
general subjected to some individuals, and those individuals subjected ‘to that in themselves which is
purely “natural”—to their irrational impulses’. Nature
rules the conditioners, and through them, humanity:
Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its
consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man... Either we are... obliged for
ever to obey the absolute value... or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and
cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own “natural” impulses. Only the [objective Moral Law] provides a common
human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A
dogmatic belief in objective values is necessary to the very idea of a rule
which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.
Taking Stock of The Abolition of Man
G.K. Chesterton, a formative influence upon Lewis, observed that:
when once one begins to think of man as a shifting and alterable
thing, it is always easy for the strong and crafty to twist him into new shapes
for all kinds of unnatural purposes... It is a very well-grounded guess that
whatever is done swiftly and systematically will mostly be done by a successful
class and almost solely in their interests. It has therefore a vision of
inhuman hybrids and half-human experiments much in the style of Mr. Wells’s
“Island of Dr. Moreau.” ... Whatever wild image one employs it cannot keep pace
with the panic of the human fancy, when once it supposes that the fixed type
called man could be changed... That is the nightmare with which the mere notion
of adaption threatens us. This is the nightmare that is not so very far from
the reality. It will be said that not the wildest evolutionist really asks that
we should become in any way unhuman... but this is exactly what not merely the
wildest evolutionists urge, but some of the tamest evolutionists...[xliv]
No comments:
Post a Comment