C. S. Lewis on contraception (Contraception, Part IX)

When speaking of Man’s power over Nature in The Abolition of Man,* C. S. Lewis mentions contraception. I did not include this in my review (see sidebar) because (1) I covered the points for which contraception was used as example, (2) I didn’t want to distract from the main discussion, and (3) I wanted to devote a separate post to it. This is the post :-).

In the beginning of Chaper Two, “The Way,” Lewis writes that, having “debunked” rationality as originating in what is absolutely true and can be known to all men, i.e., the Tao, (see part I of my review for further explanation), the “Innovator” must therefore find another basis even more “realistic.” He suggests that this basis might be Instinct – an instinct of self-preservation. Since “[we] have no instinctive urge to keep promises or to respect individual life: that is why scruples of justice and humanity – in fact the Tao – can be properly swept away when they conflict with our real end, the preservation of the species.”

That, again, is why the modern situation permits and demands a new sexual morality: the old taboos served some real purpose in helping to preserve the species, but contraceptives have modified this and we can now abandon many of the taboos. For of course sexual desire, being instinctive, is to be gratified whenever it does not conflict with the preservation of the species. It looks, in fact, as if an ethics based on instinct will give the Innovator all he wants and nothing that he does not want. (p. 46)

Whether or not the ultimate motivating factor of any human endeavor is preservation of the species (or even preservation of oneself in all regards), I think that the latter statement contains great insight. The charge that contraceptives allow consequence of breaking taboo to be avoided and therefore allow men and women to indulge in what they want is something that Pope Paul VI repeated in the Humanae Vitae.

Lewis makes no specific mention here of contraceptive use within marriage. I would assume that the abandonment of taboos he speaks of are fornication and adultery, not contraception within marriage, although I am not sure of this. Perhaps other writings of Lewis’ can shed some light on the subject. One cannot rule out the reading of this particular taboo into Lewis’ statement, although I do not know of anything in Lewis’ background to suggest that he held it.

Later, in Chapter Three, “The Abolition of Man,” Lewis gets into a much pithier argument. He begins by discussing “Man’s conquest of Nature,” something “used to describe the process of applied science.” It represents the hope – indeed the belief – of many that eventually man can conquer nature to the point of greatly reducing or even eliminating its “harmful effects” upon mankind. I have met people who believe this, people for whom technology is the savior of mankind. Lewis wishes to

make it clear that I do not wish to disparage all that is really beneficial in the process described as “Man’s conquest,” much less all the real devotion and self-sacrifice that has gone to make it possible. But having done so I must proceed to analyse this conception a little more closely. In what sense is Man the possessor of increasing power over Nature?

Let us consider three typical examples: the aeroplane, the wireless, and the contraceptive. In a civilized community, in peace-time, anyone who can pay for them may use these things. But it cannot strictly be said that when he does so he is exercising his own proper or individual power over Nature. If I pay you to carry me, I am not therefore myself a strong man. Any or all of the three things I have mentioned can be withheld from some men by other men – by those who sell, or those who allow the sale, or those who own the sources of production, or those who make the goods. What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by. Again, as regards the powers manifested in the aeroplane or the wireless, Man is as much the patient or subject as the possessor, since he is the target both for bombs and for propaganda. And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument. (pp. 66-67, italics added for ease of reference)

(This conclusion regarding Man’s power over nature is important to the main thesis of the book.)

Before commenting on the previous quote, I must supply what follows:

It is, of course, a commonplace to complain that men have hitherto used badly, and against their fellows, the powers that science has given them. But that is not the point I am trying to make. I am not speaking of particular corruptions and abuses which an increase of moral virtue would cure: I am considering what the thing called “Man’s power over Nature” must always and essentially be...unless we have a world state this will...mean the power of one nation over others. And even within the world state or the nation it will mean (in principle) the power of majorities over minorities, and (in the concrete) of a government over the people. And all long-term exercises of power, especially over breeding, must mean the power of earlier generations over later ones. (p. 67, emphasis added)

I am not yet considering whether the total result of such ambivalent victories is a good thing or a bad. I am only making clear what Man’s conquest of Nature really means and especially that final stage in the conquest, which, perhaps, is not far off. The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda baed on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. (p. 69)

Lewis uses the airplane, the telegraph, and contraception as illustrations of things whose use, by their nature, is a privilege held by a few and accessible to others only insofar as it can be purchased or allowed. In this way these things are instruments for the wielding of power by some over others. Lewis here does not say that the airplane, the telephone, and the contraceptive are bad in and of themselves, or that all uses of them are bad; he merely shows what they, by their nature, are in relation to mankind.

Lewis suggests that in using any of these three things, a person is not necessarily “exercising his own proper or individual power over Nature.” This is not to say, however, that Lewis is also saying that a person is not ever exercising a proper power by using any of them.

Lewis’ statement that contraception embodies a “paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive” could be taken as an opinion against contraception; Lewis characterizes the power wielded over future generations by contraception as negative. But he is pointing out the paradox here, that, in thinking contraception to be a tool for his betterment, man is actually using it as a power over his heritage, his future progeny – the future of his race. This seems to be more to Lewis’ point than being a specific statement against contraception. He is also illustrating the thesis that “all long-term exercises of power must mean the power of earlier generations over later ones.”

That contraception denies the existence of future generations is a concept both practical and theoretical. If every single person on the face of the earth contracepts every sex act from now to forever, and said contraception never fails, then no future generations will be produced. More specifically, contraception may deny a couple future generations of their family lines. But to say that the future generations themselves are denied existence presupposes their existence before appearing on earth. If this presupposition is correct, then what are we to say? That every sperm and every ovum are linked to a soul somewhere? Do gametes already possess the same kind of life as a zygote? Or are only the gametes that would coincide with a fertile act of intercourse linked to a soul? How can someone figure out which ones these would be? Might a marital spat resulting in abstinence during a fertile period (for a couple not using contraception) deny a soul existence on this earth? Might any sort of lack of marital copulation during a fertile period deny a life? What if a person or a couple puts off marriage for weeks, months, or even years, for various reasons? What if a couple puts off the marital act from one day to the next? The available ovum remains the same, but does the sperm? Does it matter? This seems to me to be a insoluble problem, and one that is clearly bigger than contraception itself.

The same presupposition lies behind the statement that one generation decides for another without their “concurring voice.” Whether denial of existence to “someone” who will never exist equates with exercise of power over those who have not yet been brought into existence is difficult to decide: is an act of omission the same as power exercised over those who will in fact exist in the future? Such wielding of power is clearly done “without their concurring voice.”

In speaking of contraception as “selective breeding,” Lewis must be referring to “the power of one nation over others,” of “majorities over minorities,” and of “a government over a people.” This would mean eugenic manipulation of populations. I’m not sure it can be said that a couple’s personal decision to attempt or avoid conception is “selective breeding,” since the kind of selection involved is of timing and numbers rather than of individuals themselves or their characteristics. (A side note: natural family planning makes use of such selective timing, as might someone who for any other reason abstains during a fertile period, even if indirectly. This is one reason I believe NFP to be a form of contraception, although the Catholic definition of “contraception” is based upon something else, namely, the sterilization of the sex act itself.)

Does contraception violate natural law and the Tao? Perhaps in some ways it does, yet in other ways it does not. As a tool for responsible family management within marriage, it cannot be any greater violation than other violations it seeks to avert. That a person or persons may wield a power over the future of mankind by contracepting, I do not deny. However, we all wield power over future members of our race, in many different ways. The real moral question, then, is whether a particular power thus wielded is benevolent or malevolent, and what characteristics constitute benevolence or malevolence. It truly may be an ambivalent thing, as Lewis says. Perhaps a final judgement can be found only in accordance with motives of the heart before God.

I welcome comment! (Please, be nice :-) )


*The book’s text can be read online here.