No Right to Happiness

This piece starts off with a quote by a character named Clare that says, "After all, they had a right to happiness."  The piece goes on to describe a situation where a husband leaves his wife for another woman. When his ex-wife commits suicide he responds with the following utterly pathetic quote in light of the situation.  He said, "But what could I do?  A man has a right to happiness.  I had to take my chance when it came."  Lewis uses this situation to set up his argument against a "right to happiness."  He especially focuses on this issue in the context of sexuality because he believes that the people who promote this opinion are concentrating on this issue.

Lewis starts by saying that he feels like a "right to happiness" doesn't make much sense because much of what effects happiness is out of human control.  He continues by outlining the difference between rights given by society and rights under the Natural Law.  Clare believes that there is a right to happiness in the Natural Law which should be behind all the laws of the state.  Lewis goes on to argue that if Clare is using the Natural Law as defined in the Declaration of Independence, which gives "the pursuit of happiness" as a right, to support her argument then she is taking it out of context.  This is because it does not say that happiness may be pursued by any and every means. 

C.S. Lewis believes that when Clare says happiness, she solely means "sexual happiness."  He believes this because she would not use happiness to justify other things such as greed or alcoholism.  Then he describes how society set out to treat sex like any other impulse, but it instead has treated it like no impulse has ever been treated by civilized people.  All other impulses have to be bridled, but society has proclaimed that the sexual impulse is immune from this necessity.  Lewis describes the result in this quote, "But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is 'four bare legs in bed'.  He finishes with two final thoughts.  The first is that a society in which tolerates conjugal infidelity must always be in the long run a society that is adverse to women.  The second is that if the sexual impulse is allowed to go unbridled then it will not be long before the same is tolerated for all other impulses.

I might seem harsh and overbearing in the sections following.  I do not mean ill toward any specific person and do not believe that anyone is beyond the grace of Jesus upon repentance.  I am passionate about these issues because I have seen to often what happens when people break their word and obligations to their spouses and families and then try to justify it with nonsense.  The "right to happiness" is nonsense, but it is believed by so many because our modern society promotes narcism and entitlement.  This "right" is found nowhere in Scripture and is revealed nowhere in nature.  Jesus’ most beloved friends on this earth, the eleven remaining disciples, all died a martyr's death except one. It is exactly like Lewis says, it is like claiming to have the right to be six feet tall or come from a rich family.  This right is not possible because it is out of our control.

Any man who is willing to leave his wife and family for another woman is a spineless liar and coward.  He choose to tell a woman that he would love her for life when he said his vows.  He choose to promise her that he would always provide for her and their family.  If he did not intend to do so then he was free to walk out the door then.  It is just very hard to have grace for any man who is willing to send his wife into single motherhood, let his kids go to bed every night without a dad, and most often send his family into poverty.  It is even harder to have grace for a man who does this and then tries to justify it using a "right to happiness," which in this case simply means a right to selfishness, narcism, and a denial of his most basic responsibilities as a man.  Just like when Lewis talks about acceptance of the unbridled sexual impulse leading to acceptance of other unbridled impulses, there is no limit to what a man is capable of when he has willfully broken his weeding vows and then has had the audacity to try to justify it.

I completely agree with Lewis when he says that a society where infidelity is tolerated is adverse to women.  The differences between men and women are especially manifested when it comes to the emotional life, which unquestionably plays a large role in sexuality.  Emotional connection is much more important for women and that doesn’t happen when infidelity is tolerated.  God is aware of how he made men and women differently and that is why he commands men to treat women a certain way in his word.  1st Peter 3:7 says this, "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."  "Weaker vessel" does not mean lesser person in this context.  The best analogy that I have heard that explains this verse is the idea of the woman as a vase and the man as a thermos.  The consequences of not handling a thermos with care are much less than the consequences of not handling a vase with care.  Men are to treat women differently than they treat their buddies.  They are to honor them by their actions and how they speak to them.  Infidelity leads to a culture of people using people for selfish motives and not actually loving people.  If a society is allowed to go on like this there will be a lot of thermoses that have a couple dents, but there will also be a lot of vases that are laying in pieces, completely shattered.