C.S. Lewis Debates: New "Ethics"

Essay Three of the C.S. Lewis Debates Essay Series

Welcome to essay three of Five Essays for Christmas, a series where I give you something you never asked for: five essays on C.S. Lewis’ short story, Ministering Angels and commentary on the article which sparked it. Read the previous essay for context and a better understanding:

In the 1955 issue of Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction an astronomer and science fiction writer, Robert S. Richardson, wrote an article detailing his concern for men in prolonged space travel:

“Probably the greatest threat to the success of the interplanetary project will be the growing absence of the opposite sex. Under such conditions psychiatrists tell us that men are likely to resort to some substitutes such as homosexualism and autoeroticism.” (p. 51).

His article offers a simple solution to the conditions modern psychiatry expertly asserts: send prostitutes to Mars!

C.S. Lewis, renowned apologist and Christian commentator, responds to Richardson’s genius solution in a short story titled, “Ministering Angels.” In which, the claims of the “new ethics” and “modern psychology” are duly noted, and promptly rejected by the characters out of sheer practicality.

If you haven’t already, please read the short story for your own benefit and for just a good, hardy laugh.

What Are “NEW ETHICS” & “NEW PSYCHOLOGY”?

Richardson makes no specific definition of the terms “new ethics” and “new psychology/psychiatry” within the context of his article. It seems as though these terms were common knowledge at the time of printing. In fact, he addresses that he’s not an expert:

“I am not a psychiatrist, and hence cannot speak on such matters with authority” (p. 50).

However, he still uses the common knowledge of such matters as the basis for his claims. Readers know, regardless if Richardson is an expert or not, he is a “new ethicality” proponent, if not full out fanatic.

Lewis, on the other hand, provides a rough outline for the terms which he uses in the dialogue of the prostitute who is a “lecturer at a redbrick university” (p. 158).

“I have been waiting to explain,’ said the Thin Woman, and cleared her throat. ‘Anyone who has been following World-Opinion-Trends on the problems arising out of the psychological welfare aspect of interplanetary communication will be conscious of the growing agreement that such a remarkable advance inevitably demands of us far reaching ideological adjustments. Psychologists are now well aware that a forcible inhibition of powerful biological urges over a protracted period is likely to have unforeseeable results. The pioneers of space-travel are exposed to this danger. It would be unenlightened if a supposed ethicality were allowed to stand in the way of their protection. We must therefore nerve ourselves to face the view that immorality, as it has hitherto been called, must no longer be regarded as unethical–” (p. 153).

I want to draw your attention to the end of her speech, “It would be unenlightened if a supposed ethicality were allowed to stand in the way of their protection.” Pay careful attention to the words “unenlightened” and “supposed ethicality.” This very sentence is the crux of “modern ethics” and “new psychology.”

Here, the professor-turned-prostitute admits traditional values such as self-control and innate human dignity—what we broke down in the previous essay—are unenlightened and stand in the way of protecting the pioneers of interplanetary space travel from their “powerful biological urges.” She regards traditional values, morality, and ethics of stable society (i.e. not engaging in prostitution) as archaic and deficient for the frontier of space travel. She ends her spiel by stating what is considered immoral on Earth “must no longer be regarded” as immoral for the sake of the psychological wellbeing of the men on the spaceship.

For the purpose of this essay’s analysis and these Five Essays of Christmas “New Ethics” and “New Psychology” will refer to the belief that:

1) Humanity can progress towards higher moral standards on Earth

2) Standards of morality should and can change once humans exists Earth’s atmosphere

I realize there are far more intellectual terms and definitions to use when describing the ideology leading up to and during the sexual revolution, but for the purposes of these essays, it makes the best sense to use the definitions above. They make a more substantial difference between Lewis, Richardson and their prospective works.

Would Men Become Explosive?

In an attempt at practicality, Richardson states:

“One hardly needs to be an expert to know that men and women were meant to live together, and

that when compelled to live alone they undergo personality changes of undesirable nature. Tensions would develop until they became explosive. Eventually a man would have to find some way to relax — cut loose — to do something about the impulses and ideas which have been building up inside of him” (p. 50).

The first sentence of his claim features a half-truth. It is true that men and women were meant to live together, however, “personality changes of undesirable nature” do not always occur when a season of abstinence for either sex is necessary. In fact, it might actually be clarifying, or even freeing, for one to partake in a season of abstinence. Lewis certainly seems to think so. And to Richardson’s last point on men becoming explosive without the supple touch of a woman, see the previous essay.

Lewis opens his short story with a character promised to a life of abstinence: The Monk. This character, being the meteorologist of the group, initially agreed to attend this space exploration for unscientific reasons:

“Meteorology had not been his real motive. He had chosen three years on Mars as the nearest modern equivalent to a hermitage in the desert. He had come here to meditate: to continue the slow, perpetual rebuilding of that inner structure which, in his view, it was the main purpose of life to rebuild” (p. 147).

Lewis opens the Monk’s dialogue with a simple yet powerful prayer:

“Gentle and patient Master, teach me to need men less and love thee more” (p. 147).

Throughout the story, readers learn that even though the Monk asks the Lord to isolate him even further than five men on a spaceship on Mars, he’s actually there to impact the Christian Kingdom by buffering the “new ethicality” as it unfolds on the ship.

So when Richardson asks his initial question:

“Can we really expect men to live on Mars for five years without women?” (p. 50).

Lewis responds with a character who has not only lived his life without women, but ventures into space to become even more isolated, and then asks the Lord to isolate him even more while he’s in space. The Monk wishes to be isolated from men and women not out of hate, anger, or disappointment towards them, but simply because this is the life he’s chosen. Moreover, he’s capable of mastering the self-discipline needed to carry the lifestyle to fruition.

The Monk mastered self-discipline so completely that when the announcement is made that prostitutes have arrived to service the men, he doesn’t have an excited reaction like the young technicians, or a disgusted and concerned reaction like the newly married captain, or even a slight interest in the activity presented. Due to his isolated—his season of abstinence—he simply sees the women for what they are: women.

During dinner, Monk decides to converse with the women and he’s uncovers depth to their personhood:

“The Fat Woman was talking to the Monk. ‘. . . and oh, Father dear, I know you’ll think that’s the worst of all. I didn’t give it up when I could. After me brother’s wife died . . . ‘e’d ‘ave ‘ad me ‘ome with ‘im [he’d had me home with him], and money wasn’t that short. But I went on, Gawd ‘elp me, I went on.’

‘Why did you do that, daughter?’ said the Monk. ‘Did you like it?’

‘Well not all that, Father. I was never partikler. But you see— oh, Father, I was the goods in those days, though you wouldn’t think it now . . . and the poor gentlemen, they did so enjoy it.’

‘Daughter,’ he said, ‘you are not far from the Kingdom. But you were wrong. The desire to give, is blessed. But you can’t turn bad bank notes into good ones just by giving them away’” (p.158).

While the rest of the men leave dinner to discuss their anger, resentment, or plan how to rid themselves of these women—because they are so disgusted at their features and occupation—the Monk resigns to sit and speak with the women. Venturing to understand their peril, hurt, and unravel their pain as to why and how they chose the lifestyle before them. Because he has mastered self-control and self-discipline, he’s able to look past what they offer, or desire to offer, and does what no other man on the ship can do: restores the women their dignity and bring them into the fold of the Lord’s tender mercy.

By the end of “Ministering Angles” the Monk sees these women in the likeness of Mary Magdalene saying they already acquired an “utterly indifferent loveliness which already existed within” (p. 164). The character of the Monk exists to rebut the propositions made by the ‘lecturing prostitute’ describing traditional morality as obsolete. Through the Monk, Lewis argues morality doesn’t change in space. The men on the ship are also fully capable of mastering discipline, like the Monk, which then aids in viewing women as more than instruments to ease their “powerful biological urges.”

How Does This Impact the Morality of Today?

Lewis’ entire story serves as a reminder that human nature cannot change whether it’s on Earth, in space, or on Mars. And since morals are directly related to how human nature operates, then morals are incapable of changing, either. Despite Richardson’s best efforts to redefine morality, new ethicality, and new psychology, human nature persists.

As a young woman, I find both Richardson and Lewis’ points flattering. Richardson understands femininity is attractive and does not wish men to suffer without it. Unsurprisingly, Lewis does not negate this part of Richardson’s claims. Instead, he is more interested in restoring the dignity of the young men and women discussed in Richardson’s article. Lewis encourages young men to use self-control, because he knows they’re capable of it. He fully understands the battle—far better than I—yet he still pursues the dignified path.

Clearly, Lewis’ case did not do much to stop the shifting ideologies of the pre-sexual revolution and after. However, his arguments remain true. The culture of today experiences the affects of Richardson’s claims and the new ethicality he invites into the ideological playground. My generation (Gen-Z) and younger, watch as “B.O.P houses” and “OnlyFans” influencers normalize prostitution and perpetuate the statements made by the lecturing woman in “Ministering Angles” to “be conscious of the growing agreement that such a remarkable advance inevitably demands of us far reaching ideological adjustments.” Efforts to treat sex-work as “real” work, or at least as a normalized career are advocated for on podcasts, media outlets, and internet conversations et large. How much more important is Lewis’ message for self-control, self-discipline, and upholding each other’s innate human dignity, today?

Do you think we’re about to answer Richardson’s question about sending prostitutes in space? If so, should we? What do you think Lewis would say in response?