Even after some of C.S. Lewis's false claims about the nature of arrogance in Mere Christianity were already refuted in the previous part of this series, there is still more to dissect about how poorly he handles the matter of arrogance. Just as he sided with myths about Christian theology and philosophy as a whole in the earlier chapters of the book, he misrepresents what arrogance is and is not, as well as how someone can identify pride in their own mind. Lewis actually posits in Mere Christianity that pride hides behind almost every sin in human history:
"The Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity--it is enmity." (123-124)
Contrary to what Lewis says, pride can draw people together. Arrogance is not always manifested in thinking better of oneself than others on some illicit grounds, as it can be manifested in a feeling of superiority from belonging to some group that does not give one a higher significance. For instance, someone might feel morally superior because they are a woman or a man, a white or a black, an American or someone from a different country, and so on. Pride certainly can bring people together, but not in rational or morally sound ways. Of course, pride is not the "chief cause of misery" in the world. Irrationality is at the heart of all pride, and pride is not even at the heart of all sin, so it cannot possibly be the primary sinful motive behind injustices across history!
Lewis soon proposes an illogical test for whether one is prideful that ends up having nothing to do with pride itself:
"Luckily, we have a test. Whenever we find our religious life is making us feel that we are good--above all, that we are better than someone else--I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the devil." (124-125)
The entire point of redemption in Christianity is the moral restoration and betterment of the saved (Romans 6:1-2), and there is nothing arrogant or unjust about acknowledging and delighting in one's own moral character [1]. If one is morally upright, as all people are capable of being or becoming, it is actually irrational and deceitful to think that one is incapable of being good. If one is morally superior to someone else, it is therefore not arrogant to feel good about one's moral superiority as long as it is not accompanied by a dehumanization of moral inferiors. It cannot be arrogant to feel empowered or satisfied with moral superiority because one is not thinking more highly of oneself than one's status would permit!
Lewis, operating from his false understanding of pride and moral superiority, actually assumes that a sense of moral superiority is always from the devil, which only multiplies his errors. He is so intent on demonizing a focus on the self that he defends the shallowness of looking to others for existential validation as being better than thinking that any special significance of one's worldview and accomplishments is worth feeling good about for its own sake:
"The child who is patted on the back for doing a lesson well, the woman whose beauty is praised by her lover, the saved soul to whom Christ says 'Well done,' are pleased and ought to be. For here the pleasure lies not in what you are but in the fact that you have pleased someone you wanted (and rightly wanted) to please. The trouble begins when you pass from thinking, 'I have pleased him; all is well,' to thinking, 'What a fine person I must be to have done it.' The more you delight in yourself and the less you delight in the praise, the worse you are becoming." (125-126)
It is petty and irrational to suppose that pleasing others is more important than living however one wishes as long as no moral obligations to others or one's own self are violated. If a person is more rational and just than others, there is no reason to please them other than personal preference and manipulation for ends that are not immoral. Whether someone is offended by this is a red herring that cannot demonstrate that it truly deserves condemnation. Of course some people will feel insecure when called inferior for their moral apathy, and they might be tempted to assume feelings of moral superiority must be borne out of arrogance, but the two are very conceptually distinct.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/properly-defining-arrogance.html
No comments:
Post a Comment