Rating: 
Summary: Lewis was an intellectual giant
Review: As I read this, I was shocked to see exactly how many of Lewis' predictions are now upon us. Lewis' condemnation of public education's relativism is desperately needed is today's culture. By condemning public education's abandonment of objective truth, Lewis clearly paints a picure of the world we will have as a result, specifically the world in which we live today.Through a series of three essays Lewis shows that when we lose objective truth and force everything into subjectivity we effectively destory any basis for reason. Right and wrong become illusions. Ultimatly, we will destory ourselves from the inside out. This speaks volumes about the current condition of our culture. In a world were disagreement in considered oppression and anything that opposes my personal morality is considered politically incorrect, Lewis is "a voice crying out in the wilderness." How long will it take before we see that Lewis was right and our politically correct subjectivity will finally make us a people incapable of thinking anything at all?
Rating:
Summary: Prophetic and Disturbing
Review: Lewis' insight into human nature and society's directions continues to astound me. Written nearly 60 years ago, this book describes the ultimate cost of mankind departing from the notion of objective right & wrong, from truth itself. It is particularly interesting today in light of recent "advances" in technologies for genetic manipulation. The book is such a brief read that no-one should miss the opportunity to be challenged by it.
Rating:
Summary: interesting
Review: This book is a very interesting look at the role of education in society. Lewis poses some very interesting points. A worthwhile read.
Rating:
Summary: Prophetic Words.
Review: This is a book by C.S. Lewis. What more needs to be said? Lewis never did write one bad book, whether he was writing about fantasy, sci-fi, philosophy, criticism, or whatever. In this small book (less than 100 pages) Lewis examines what is wrong with modern education and what will be the end result of the current (even today) trend: the abolition of man. Enlightening and prophetic reading.
Rating:
Summary: What happens if a person loses a sense of right and wrong?
Review: Hands down, this is my favorite C. S. Lewis book, "The Screwtape Letters," and "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" notwithstanding. This book discusses moral absolutes, and what would happen if we lose the sense of right and wrong.
This short book is only three chapters long, but, charachteristically, Lewis says more with one letter than some people say their entire lives. Chapter One discusses MORAL RELATIVISM that is taught in schools, and how the end result of relativism is a dehumanizing process where we become "men without chests," or hearts, humans without a sense of right and wrong, and therfore no longer humans. You see this idea manifested in the varous Varsity and JV Columbine-style shootings that are now en vogue. Chapte Two discusses this set of moral laws or traditional values, which Lewis calls "the Tao." The Tao is the source of all value judgements and is the source of "traditional morality." When people try to change this morality, they are destroying all sense of right and wrong. "The human mind hs no more power of inventing an new [moral] value than of imagining a new primary color." (p. 56) We need this absolute set of moral laws to survive. Chapter Three discusses the result of not having any absolute values: what happens is that rightness and wrongness is reduced to appetites, "the emotional strength of [the] impuse" (p.57). These is no law, just rampant and renegade emotions controlling everything. There is no sense of fairness, just a "might makes right" law of the jungle, a la Korihor. The one appendix contains illustrations of this moral law from differing civilizations. Memebrs of the Church of Jesus Christ would see the Light of Christ behind all of this. This is a pressing book, and should be read with "1984," "Brave New World," "People of the Lie," and "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" in mind. Three cheers for C. S. Lewis!
Rating:
Summary: excellent
Review: Although this is probably the Lewis book most thick with philosophy, and is a bit difficult to read, it is defnitely my favorite. Since reading this book I have been haunted by Lewis's theory that in attemp to control nature we only gain control over our fellow men. Lewis proposes that the philosophy of moral relativism, guised as freedom, is actually an archetype for enslavement for both those controlled, and those controlling. If society is reduced to no values, power becomes the only thing worth attaining. Those in power, unchecked by morals, have the ability and freedom to manipulate the subjects in any way they choose. Lewis is saying that man, in his attempt to make progress, learns to control more and more of nature. However, in his attempt to control nature he only gains control over fellow men. In giving up the Tao and allowing himself to do this, man succumbs to cruel nature which, as is obvious by this pattern, he has no control over at all.
Rating: 
Summary: A Prophetic Book from WWII
Review: It's truly amazing how correct C.S. Lewis was in this book. From a single example of a new school book, he foretold exactly what the Liberals (in the American sense) would do to mankind via the educational establishment. A very short book, but a very good one.
Rating:
Summary: Contra the fundamentalist rousaswgnr & the Vancouver leftist
Review: The Abolition of Man is a stunningly brilliant masterpiece, prophetic in its insight. [....] [...] apparently thinks that any appeal to right and wrong that doesn't simply quote Bible verses is anti-Christian. Obviously, he would be completely incapable of trying to convince nonChristians that there are universal moral laws that are contravened at our peril -- the very thing Lewis was trying to do. At one point this seeming "fundamentalist" wrote that only scripture teaches right and wrong and things about God. That statement is ironically contrary to scripture itself which says "the heavens declare the glory of God" and that God has revealled His ways and parts of His nature in nature itself and in human consciences (Romans 1). [He]contradicts scripture while trying to defend it. That's a pity. For if he really understood scripture or C. S. Lewis he would know that Lewis is saying what scripture says: God has universal moral laws that He has written into nature that all people can see and that have been generally recognized by major civilizations throughout the ages. Lewis also says it with breath-taking beauty. [Another person] is even more vacuous than the fundamentalist. (That's typical.) Like the typical leftist, he imagines that he's brilliant while proving that he doesn't have a clue. He thinks he's clever by quoting Lau Tzu on the meaning of "Tao." But if he'd bothered to have really read Lewis or found out the meaning of the Chinese word "Tao", he would know that Lewis was not referring to Taoism but to the much more pervasive use of the idea of "Tao" in Chinese culture: that offered by Confucianism. [He] condemns Lewis for not getting it because he assumes that anyone who disagrees with his leftist ideology is empty-headed. His mindless repitition of Marxist ideology -- that moral systems are the mere fronts for political powers -- shows he's the one who hasn't understood Lewis. [His] statement that Lewis is merely defending "western" morals is absurd to the point of questioning whether he actually read the book -- or whether he's capable of really reading anything that isn't pre-committed to his Marxist politics. Indeed, [he] demonstrates that he's one of those men without chests about whom Lewis is writing while [the previous person]shows why modern conservative Christianity -- so frigthened of innovative communication -- has been so impotent, even though it holds the solution to the cultural problem Lewis diagnoses if only it could get over its reactionary anti-intellectualism and rigidity of mind that [he] exemplifies.
Rating:
Summary: Contra the fundamentalist rousaswgnr & the Vancouver leftist
Review: The Abolition of Man is a stunningly brilliant masterpiece, prophetic in its insight. Several of the other reviewers here who gave the book is plainly deserved five stars have done a fine job of reviewing its contents. Let me respond briefly to the fundamentalist (rousaswgnr) in Campsville, CA and the leftist bigot in Vancouver, WA. Both fail to scratch the surface of the book for opposite reasons. The reviewer in Campsville (rousaswgnr) apparently thinks that any appeal to right and wrong that doesn't simply quote Bible verses is anti-Christian. Obviously, he would be completely incapable of trying to convince nonChristians that there are universal moral laws that are contravened at our peril -- the very thing Lewis was trying to do. At one point this seeming "fundamentalist" wrote that only scripture teaches right and wrong and things about God. That statement is ironically contrary to scripture itself which says "the heavens declare the glory of God" and that God has revealled His ways and parts of His nature in nature itself and in human consciences (Romans 1). The reviewer rousaswgnr contradicts scripture while trying to defend it. That's a pity. For if he really understood scripture or C. S. Lewis he would know that Lewis is saying what scripture says: God has universal moral laws that He has written into nature that all people can see and that have been generally recognized by major civilizations throughout the ages. Lewis also says it with breath-taking beauty. The leftist from Vancouver, WA is even more vacuous than the fundamentalist. (That's typical.) Like the typical leftist, he imagines that he's brilliant while proving that he doesn't have a clue. He thinks he's clever by quoting Lau Tzu on the meaning of "Tao." But if he'd bothered to have really read Lewis or found out the meaning of the Chinese word "Tao", he would know that Lewis was not referring to Taoism but to the much more pervasive use of the idea of "Tao" in Chinese culture: that offered by Confucianism. The humanist from Vancouver, WA condemns Lewis for not getting it because he assumes that anyone who disagrees with his leftist ideology is empty-headed. His mindless repitition of Marxist ideology -- that moral systems are the mere fronts for political powers -- shows he's the one who hasn't understood Lewis. The Vancouver, WA leftist's statement that Lewis is merely defending "western" morals is absurd to the point of questioning whether he actually read the book -- or whether he's capable of really reading anything that isn't pre-committed to his Marxist politics. Indeed, the Vancouver leftist demonstrates that he's one of those men without chests about whom Lewis is writing while the fundamentalist from Campsville shows why modern conservative Christianity -- so frigthened of innovative communication -- has been so impotent, even though it holds the solution to the cultural problem Lewis diagnoses if only it could get over its reactionary anti-intellectualism and rigidity of mind that the reviewer exemplifies.
Rating: 
Summary: Explains, shows the consequences but little argument
Review: I read this book after a few different sources mentioned it as a book that deals with moral relativism. After reading the book, I don't know if I can honestly agree with many of the other reviewers. I have read two other books by C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity," and, "The Screwtape Letters," so I think I have some idea what his approach is. I can only hope that I am failing to grasp his ideas or that I am misunderstanding him. Definitions: moral relativism: The position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right and wrongs. The philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. moral objectivism/absolutism: The position that there are universally binding moral principles that apply to all persons, at all places and at all times. The book discusses the consequences of moral relativism and shows the difficulty of replacing absolute ethics with relative ones. However, I don't come away from the book thinking, "All right. I know how I can show moral relativism is false in a debate. I now know how to defend absolute ethics against objections." Perhaps this simply was not the objective of the book. The first essay (it was originally a lecture) titled, "Men Without Chests," was probably the best in my opinion. Lewis examined a common elementary level school English textbook and looked at the philosophy that it taught. The implication of the wording and the subtle way in which relativism was communicated is prophetic. This same analysis could no doubt be applied to our current trends of political correctness. In his essay titled, "The Tao," Lewis provides much argument to show that a moral system cannot be based on instincts. However, much of his argument seems to reduce to: moral objectivism is axiomatic. He argues that there are simply moral first principles, analogous to the three laws of logic, which cannot be denied. However, I think there are many people who would deny that moral objectivism is self-evident. If I were a moral relativist, I would hardly be convinced by Lewis' arguments here. The last section is titled, "Illustrations of the Tao." Lewis calls natural law or moral objectivism the Tao. This section simply provides excerpts from different books around the world (e.g. ancient Egyptian, ancient Chinese, Roman and Jewish) to show the universality of certain ethics. I would have liked a book that looked at the founders of moral relativism and their opponents. Then, a point-by-point analysis of their position followed by some examples of how moral relativism fails. I would much prefer the rigorous argumentation of Dr. William Lane Craig to this. I just honestly think that relativism is false but this book does not show that fact. I am going to read and review, "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air," by Francis J. Beckwith, Gregory Koukl; I think this book may be better at refuting relativism.
| 
