We Have No "Right to Happiness"

Lewis proposes a countercultural idea, that we actually have no 'right to happiness.' At first when I read this I was a little taken aback. It seemed like such a malicious idea, that we had no right to happiness. In fact, when I first read the essay I was determined to find a problem in it. After reading it several times though, I believe that I understand his point and have to agree that we really don't have any right to happiness.
The right to happiness in the basic sense is that we are each entitled to our own personal freedoms that make us happiest as long as they do not infringe on other's happiness. So for example, if I am happiest listening to music in my room, then I have a right to do so. But if I am happiest killing people, well then obviously I have no right to do this because it invades other's happiness. The question that immediately came to mind at this juncture was, "where is the line drawn?" Is Mr. A's happiness in remarrying justifiable when it results in the suicide of his wife? His decision infringed on her pursuit of happiness, but arguably was it all his fault? Marriages end for a number of reasons, and if it truly wasn't working perhaps it was for the best. Perhaps. But Lewis addresses the issue when he says that 'happiness' is really only 'sexual happiness.' The fictional personification of culture Clare really only uses happiness when describing sexual happiness. She would not encourage the cruel tactics of a tycoon who hurt people to get money. And certainly would not promote alcoholism because it made the man happier when he was drunk.

The paragraph that I found most interesting was the one explaining our impulses. I have heard this argument before, that sexual desires are a natural impulse and should be treated as any such impulse and get a response. Lewis dispels this excellently with his explanation that we do not give in to every impulse. I do not eat compulsively when I am hungry. I sleep, but not when I am doing something important. (Lewis uses the example of a sentry) With this logic in place it seems irrational to give sex a place of honor where it is given special privilege over all other impulses.

Lewis says, "absolute obedience to your instinct for self-preservation is what we call cowardice, to your acquisitive, impulse, avarice." I could not agree with him more. In my philosophy class last semester we did a section on spiritual disciplines in which we discussed Plato's metaphor of the charioteer. The basic idea of this metaphor is that there are three parts to the soul. The charioteer is the analytical, thoughtful driving who needs to be in control of the chariot to keep it on track. Then there are two steeds. The first is the Appetitive Steed which could be described as the impulse steed. It is our natural desires for sleep, food, mating and a variety of other desires. The second is the Spirit Steed, our courage and conviction. Plato says that in order to be truly autonomous we need to keep the Charioteer in control at all times. It is not that the steeds themselves are evil, but if left unchecked they will run wild and control us instead of us controlling them. They will dominate our choices because we will be slaves to desires and foolhardy passion. I believe this is what Lewis is saying when he says that obedience to instinct is cowardice. When we let our impulse dominate our life we are being too cowardly to control ourselves.