How does C.S. Lewis refute utility and instinct as the basis for ethics
... task is to make clear to men with pure reasoning why he should die for others or why others should die for him to live. Yet, this still stirs up problems. Even if you tell a man that he should risk dying or else we all die it rouses up the question “Why should I be the one of those who take the risk?” In other words, why should I be the one to die instead of him? In addition, Lewis states, “the Innovator may ask why, after all, selfishness should be more 'rational' or 'intelligent' than altruism. The question is welcome. If by Reason we mean the process actually employed by Gaius and Titius when engaged in debunking (that is, the connecting by inference of propositions, ultimately derived from sense data, with further propositions), then the answer must be that a refusal to sacrifice oneself is no more rational than a consent to do so. And no less rational. Neither choice is rational—or irrational—at all. From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved. This will cost you your life cannot lead directly to do not do this: it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self-preservation.” Lewis claims that you cannot get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative mood. Therefore, utility does not work. Lewis refutes instinct on the grounds that if we must obey instinct, then why write the book. Why make a book on the rules of instinct? We are supposed to already know them, which is what instinct is. It is innate. Lewis asserts that our instincts tell us to preserve society, our own species. “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.” Moreover, the Innovator will get what he wants from an ethics based on instinct. However, if it is said that we must obey instincts, why write a book about it? Additionally in refute of instinct as a foundation for ethics, Lewis asks the question s will we be happier if we obey instinct, and why ought we obey instinct. Now, we go back to death for a good cause. By instinct, we remove all achievable satisfaction. Because we have an innate need for the good of posterity, this longing or need could never be reached. The only way to achieve it is to be dead. Instinct is a statement of psychological fact. If I say, “I have an impulse to do so and so” we cannot derive “I ought to obey this impulse.” The question arises whether it is an impulse we should control or one to indulge. In addition, Lewis declares that some instincts come into conflict with others. “Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of all the rest. By the very act of listening to one rather than to others we have already prejudged the case. If we did not bring to the examination of our instincts a knowledge of their comparative dignity we could never learn it from them. And that knowledge cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, ...