Abolition Of Man Lewis Analysis

Abolition of Man Response Paper
In the book, Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis illustrates how the lack of objective values affects the human race and its progeny, using the philosophical theories proposed by The Green Book, an elementary textbook on English. Lewis goes on in his series of lectures to explain what such theories mean, and the ramifications of adopting such philosophies. What struck me the most, however, was the prevalence of these ramifications in today’s society; Lewis’s conclusions and observations hold true in our world today.
In the first section, Lewis shows the conclusion students of The Green Book will make due to the book’s debunking of value statements, causing them to infer that “all values are subjective and trivial”
Lewis makes the comment that without a heart, man is “by his intellect…mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal” (Lewis, 8). Many criminals, especially those with excessive homicidal tendencies, we find, are mere animals. Lacking a conscious, or a value system that dictates right and wrong, such people are left with base appetites and impulses, which they follow without any remorse or guilt, degrading them to the level of animals. In the case of ‘mere spirits’, those who base their actions solely on reasoning and logic, we find that it is not reason that prompts one to do anything. Reason alone is not cause for action of any type; “no justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous” (Lewis, 8). Without a heart to carry out the response, such a person is a mere spirit: unable to express outwardly what is occurring inwardly. Additionally, if one was to follow the very limiting lifestyle of living according to reason, one would have a friendless, bland and uneventful life, much like a robot or computer. However, I might note that without an objective value system, such behavior cannot be criticized; behavior which is much more dangerous than mere animal behavior. For if no one is bound to an objective value system, then humans are mere animals, left to the whims of nature and emotion to survive, their lives insignificant and their accomplishments nothing. Everything we as humans live
My initial response to the answer was no, in that progress (in my mind) carries a positive connotation, and my assumption was that the researchers and developers would follow ethical standards. But when the question is asked in light of Lewis’s writings, my skepticism grows. From where do these researches gain their ethical beliefs? Do they even hold any ethical standard? The uncertainty of the answers to such questions makes me alter my initial response. To allow for unchecked experimentation and research without assurance of the researcher’s ethical standards is foolish. This is especially true in the realm of genetics. I cite the example of the researchers who grew cells that contained the mixed genetic material of pigs and humans. The researchers did not question their actions and the possible results until the cell had divided multiple times, terminating the experiment after the cells’ multiplication. This sort of experimentation without thorough ethical consideration beforehand can be detrimental and perhaps even life threatening to the subject. What had the scientists created? It’s difficult to say. But what’s even more difficult is asking whether or not it was right for the scientists to terminate the experiment and perhaps, the life of a new species. Without limits on experimentation, there are dangerous